Success with Ivy-level admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same number of kids got into Ivies this year, as last year, as the schools have not changed the number of kids admitted.

But the unis may have changed their goals for admission - two easy examples, maybe they are admitting more international students or wanted more geo diversity within the US.

Those are big "may" and "maybe" 's.

You'd need to cite evidence or it is easy to dismiss your post.

No need to get huffy. I'm not the PP, but have 2 DCs just going through these last cycles and both of these popped to mind when I read this thread. For example, I am aware of a T20 university with an overseas campus. There is an agreement that the students at the overseas campus will be able to study for one year at the US campus. That school is now having to accommodate two years' worth of students in this coming academic year. Given that, there are not as many openings for the incoming '26 class.

It’s not getting huffy to say “you just made that up without evidence” as people may read this forum, take your statement as fact and make uninformed decisions based on it.

This is a discussion forum. If you make a claim you should be prepared for it to be challenged. Your anecdote above is not evidence, and your lack of mentioning the school is a tell that you can’t support it with any facts.

PP is right - essentially the same number of seats for the same number of students. That’s all verifiable in the CDSs.

LOL. It's Duke and heard directly from a board member. So maybe Duke spun the board member, IDK.

Again, I'm not the PP with the original assertion. I responded because those were the first two points that also crossed my mind based on college search, tours, etc over the last three years. You can still have the same number of seats but fill a fair percentage of them with international students. That translates into a smaller pool of seats available for US applicants.

Again, no need to be huffy. You could have framed everything you did above without immediately accusing people of acting in bad faith. This is DCUM, not a Congressional hearing.

Duke CDS Enrollees:

2021: 538 non-resident aliens
2020: 631
2019: 636

I guess we'll have to wait for the next CDS to absolutely check what you heard, but the current data, for the "last three years", shows the number as around 10% and declining slightly. Enrollments are what matter, if they are taking the same number of enrollees, there is no net reduction.

If requiring facts and one minute of research makes me "Huffy", then I embrace huffy, and feel there is a total need for facts and none for "may and maybe"s. This process is hard enough on people.

Have a great day, and try not to be so sensitive when you have your facts checked.

Again, as I posted, these are students enrolled on their overseas campus who are promised one year (semester?) on Duke's campus. According to the board member, they have two years' worth of those students who have not been able to attend Duke due to COVID and now need to be accommodated. IDK where the campus is or if the non-resident alien (technically not NRA if not in the USA) numbers of students enrolled on overseas campuses are reflected in the CDS, but somehow, according to this board member, they have to be housed this school year.

And again, LOL. I'm not being sensitive. I am just suggesting that your communications style may be lacking.

A classic ad hominem, Which is what you do when you don’t have any facts.

So a board member is insufficient?

And that's a very generous definition of ad hominem. Very.

ad ho·mi·nem /ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

adverb
1. in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
2. in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.

You typed:

I am just suggesting that your communications style may be lacking.

Not a "generous" definition at all, but rather application of the literal one.

NP not sure why you think the other poster is attacking you when the aggressive nature of your posts are what stood out in the thread. Then when you get just a bit of pushback, you claim to be a victim? This is petty. Can we focus on the topic, and you just let people offer ideas/thoughts?

Not claiming to be a "victim" at all. Just pointing out the ad hominem attack, rather than attacking the substance of the discussion. That's what people do when they don't have a substantive response. That's pretty clear from reading the posts.

When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means. Others are not seeing this attack. In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same number of kids got into Ivies this year, as last year, as the schools have not changed the number of kids admitted.

But the unis may have changed their goals for admission - two easy examples, maybe they are admitting more international students or wanted more geo diversity within the US.

Those are big "may" and "maybe" 's.

You'd need to cite evidence or it is easy to dismiss your post.

No need to get huffy. I'm not the PP, but have 2 DCs just going through these last cycles and both of these popped to mind when I read this thread. For example, I am aware of a T20 university with an overseas campus. There is an agreement that the students at the overseas campus will be able to study for one year at the US campus. That school is now having to accommodate two years' worth of students in this coming academic year. Given that, there are not as many openings for the incoming '26 class.

It’s not getting huffy to say “you just made that up without evidence” as people may read this forum, take your statement as fact and make uninformed decisions based on it.

This is a discussion forum. If you make a claim you should be prepared for it to be challenged. Your anecdote above is not evidence, and your lack of mentioning the school is a tell that you can’t support it with any facts.

PP is right - essentially the same number of seats for the same number of students. That’s all verifiable in the CDSs.

LOL. It's Duke and heard directly from a board member. So maybe Duke spun the board member, IDK.

Again, I'm not the PP with the original assertion. I responded because those were the first two points that also crossed my mind based on college search, tours, etc over the last three years. You can still have the same number of seats but fill a fair percentage of them with international students. That translates into a smaller pool of seats available for US applicants.

Again, no need to be huffy. You could have framed everything you did above without immediately accusing people of acting in bad faith. This is DCUM, not a Congressional hearing.

Duke CDS Enrollees:

2021: 538 non-resident aliens
2020: 631
2019: 636

I guess we'll have to wait for the next CDS to absolutely check what you heard, but the current data, for the "last three years", shows the number as around 10% and declining slightly. Enrollments are what matter, if they are taking the same number of enrollees, there is no net reduction.

If requiring facts and one minute of research makes me "Huffy", then I embrace huffy, and feel there is a total need for facts and none for "may and maybe"s. This process is hard enough on people.

Have a great day, and try not to be so sensitive when you have your facts checked.

Again, as I posted, these are students enrolled on their overseas campus who are promised one year (semester?) on Duke's campus. According to the board member, they have two years' worth of those students who have not been able to attend Duke due to COVID and now need to be accommodated. IDK where the campus is or if the non-resident alien (technically not NRA if not in the USA) numbers of students enrolled on overseas campuses are reflected in the CDS, but somehow, according to this board member, they have to be housed this school year.

And again, LOL. I'm not being sensitive. I am just suggesting that your communications style may be lacking.

A classic ad hominem, Which is what you do when you don’t have any facts.

So a board member is insufficient?

And that's a very generous definition of ad hominem. Very.

ad ho·mi·nem /ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

adverb
1. in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
2. in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.

You typed:

I am just suggesting that your communications style may be lacking.

Not a "generous" definition at all, but rather application of the literal one.

NP not sure why you think the other poster is attacking you when the aggressive nature of your posts are what stood out in the thread. Then when you get just a bit of pushback, you claim to be a victim? This is petty. Can we focus on the topic, and you just let people offer ideas/thoughts?

Not claiming to be a "victim" at all. Just pointing out the ad hominem attack, rather than attacking the substance of the discussion. That's what people do when they don't have a substantive response. That's pretty clear from reading the posts.

When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means. Others are not seeing this attack. In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

TY!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means.

No that is NOT what it means, and I posted the definition above. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, and when one is used in a discussion it is completely acceptable to point it out. I am not a victim in any way, nor claiming to be one.

Anonymous wrote:Others are not seeing this attack.

I'll only respond to you since I cannot be sure there are others who wish you to speak for them. The fact that you are not seeing it is because it appears you do not know what one is. It's when you criticize the messenger personally, instead of the substance of the message.

Anonymous wrote:In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

1. I did not make the original claim, the person making the claim has the burden of proof
2. Despite that, I actually DID provide data to the contrary
3. If demanding people provide evidence to support their claims is "aggressive", then I do not mind being labeled as such. Better than than some poor kid not apply to Duke because of some BS his mom read on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means.

No that is NOT what it means, and I posted the definition above. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, and when one is used in a discussion it is completely acceptable to point it out. I am not a victim in any way, nor claiming to be one.

Anonymous wrote:Others are not seeing this attack.

I'll only respond to you since I cannot be sure there are others who wish you to speak for them. The fact that you are not seeing it is because it appears you do not know what one is. It's when you criticize the messenger personally, instead of the substance of the message.

Anonymous wrote:In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

1. I did not make the original claim, the person making the claim has the burden of proof
2. Despite that, I actually DID provide data to the contrary
3. If demanding people provide evidence to support their claims is "aggressive", then I do not mind being labeled as such. Better than than some poor kid not apply to Duke because of some BS his mom read on DCUM.

Yikes, you are like a dog with a bone. Just trying to give you the perspective you are missing. But, whatever, man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means.

No that is NOT what it means, and I posted the definition above. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, and when one is used in a discussion it is completely acceptable to point it out. I am not a victim in any way, nor claiming to be one.

Anonymous wrote:Others are not seeing this attack.

I'll only respond to you since I cannot be sure there are others who wish you to speak for them. The fact that you are not seeing it is because it appears you do not know what one is. It's when you criticize the messenger personally, instead of the substance of the message.

Anonymous wrote:In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

1. I did not make the original claim, the person making the claim has the burden of proof
2. Despite that, I actually DID provide data to the contrary
3. If demanding people provide evidence to support their claims is "aggressive", then I do not mind being labeled as such. Better than than some poor kid not apply to Duke because of some BS his mom read on DCUM.

Yikes, you are like a dog with a bone. Just trying to give you the perspective you are missing. But, whatever, man.

Responding to you makes me a “ Dog with a bone”?

And you know that is yet another ad hominem right? Too funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means.

No that is NOT what it means, and I posted the definition above. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, and when one is used in a discussion it is completely acceptable to point it out. I am not a victim in any way, nor claiming to be one.

Anonymous wrote:Others are not seeing this attack.

I'll only respond to you since I cannot be sure there are others who wish you to speak for them. The fact that you are not seeing it is because it appears you do not know what one is. It's when you criticize the messenger personally, instead of the substance of the message.

Anonymous wrote:In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

1. I did not make the original claim, the person making the claim has the burden of proof
2. Despite that, I actually DID provide data to the contrary
3. If demanding people provide evidence to support their claims is "aggressive", then I do not mind being labeled as such. Better than than some poor kid not apply to Duke because of some BS his mom read on DCUM.

Yikes, you are like a dog with a bone. Just trying to give you the perspective you are missing. But, whatever, man.

Right. Most people would have moved on but not this PP who clearly missed the class on "persuasion" when in HS/college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means.

No that is NOT what it means, and I posted the definition above. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, and when one is used in a discussion it is completely acceptable to point it out. I am not a victim in any way, nor claiming to be one.

Anonymous wrote:Others are not seeing this attack.

I'll only respond to you since I cannot be sure there are others who wish you to speak for them. The fact that you are not seeing it is because it appears you do not know what one is. It's when you criticize the messenger personally, instead of the substance of the message.

Anonymous wrote:In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

1. I did not make the original claim, the person making the claim has the burden of proof
2. Despite that, I actually DID provide data to the contrary
3. If demanding people provide evidence to support their claims is "aggressive", then I do not mind being labeled as such. Better than than some poor kid not apply to Duke because of some BS his mom read on DCUM.

Yikes, you are like a dog with a bone. Just trying to give you the perspective you are missing. But, whatever, man.

Responding to you makes me a “ Dog with a bone”?

And you know that is yet another ad hominem right? Too funny.

No, it really isn't. You have to look that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means.

No that is NOT what it means, and I posted the definition above. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, and when one is used in a discussion it is completely acceptable to point it out. I am not a victim in any way, nor claiming to be one.

Anonymous wrote:Others are not seeing this attack.

I'll only respond to you since I cannot be sure there are others who wish you to speak for them. The fact that you are not seeing it is because it appears you do not know what one is. It's when you criticize the messenger personally, instead of the substance of the message.

Anonymous wrote:In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

1. I did not make the original claim, the person making the claim has the burden of proof
2. Despite that, I actually DID provide data to the contrary
3. If demanding people provide evidence to support their claims is "aggressive", then I do not mind being labeled as such. Better than than some poor kid not apply to Duke because of some BS his mom read on DCUM.

Yikes, you are like a dog with a bone. Just trying to give you the perspective you are missing. But, whatever, man.

Responding to you makes me a “ Dog with a bone”?

And you know that is yet another ad hominem right? Too funny.

So, now you are claiming to be the subject of multiple "ad hominem" attacks (at least in your estimation). But, you are not playing the victim. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they go the extra mile? Do they love to learn? Are they scholarly with a natural gift for academic pursuits? Are they engaged deeply and for a sustained period ( years) with ECs of interest? Are they distinguished participants in those ECs? Are they a real standout in a particular discipline?

Unless they have some hook, that is the type of candidate they are up against to gain admittance at top universities. Top grades and scores are not enough....all the applicants admitted have that.

+1

I have said in this board before that there is a difference between a high academically performing kid and a truly gifted child. Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated.

" Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated." - Not ALL accepted HYPSM kids truly have these traits. Many extrapolate what they do. There is NO validation/verification done by the schools. I understand it's hard to do that for every applicant. But once they have shortlisted, they can atleast spot check one per every 100 application or something like that. Atleast the schools can verify the few things in the application that they considered for admission. This "holistic" approach truly benefits only a small percentage. There are a lot that just game the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they go the extra mile? Do they love to learn? Are they scholarly with a natural gift for academic pursuits? Are they engaged deeply and for a sustained period ( years) with ECs of interest? Are they distinguished participants in those ECs? Are they a real standout in a particular discipline?

Unless they have some hook, that is the type of candidate they are up against to gain admittance at top universities. Top grades and scores are not enough....all the applicants admitted have that.

+1

I have said in this board before that there is a difference between a high academically performing kid and a truly gifted child. Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated.

" Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated." - Not ALL accepted HYPSM kids truly have these traits. Many extrapolate what they do. There is NO validation/verification done by the schools. I understand it's hard to do that for every applicant. But once they have shortlisted, they can atleast spot check one per every 100 application or something like that. Atleast the schools can verify the few things in the application that they considered for admission. This "holistic" approach truly benefits only a small percentage. There are a lot that just game the system.

Not really. Why would a system gamer want to go those schools anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they go the extra mile? Do they love to learn? Are they scholarly with a natural gift for academic pursuits? Are they engaged deeply and for a sustained period ( years) with ECs of interest? Are they distinguished participants in those ECs? Are they a real standout in a particular discipline?

Unless they have some hook, that is the type of candidate they are up against to gain admittance at top universities. Top grades and scores are not enough....all the applicants admitted have that.

+1

I have said in this board before that there is a difference between a high academically performing kid and a truly gifted child. Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated.

" Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated." - Not ALL accepted HYPSM kids truly have these traits. Many extrapolate what they do. There is NO validation/verification done by the schools. I understand it's hard to do that for every applicant. But once they have shortlisted, they can atleast spot check one per every 100 application or something like that. Atleast the schools can verify the few things in the application that they considered for admission. This "holistic" approach truly benefits only a small percentage. There are a lot that just game the system.

Not really. Why would a system gamer want to go those schools anyway?

one example of gaming the system - starting a charity organization or a tutoring agency. the website will talk have pics, info, etc projecting as if the org is doing amazing things but in reality it's not. And their essays will talk a lot about these amazing things which wouldn't have happened in that magnitude in reality. I personally know 3 such kids. 2 got into Princeton and 1 to Harvard. They are academically high achieving kids for sure but not as heavily involved in community service / leadership which they claim to be in their LinkedIn profile and their charity/tutoring websites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means.

No that is NOT what it means, and I posted the definition above. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, and when one is used in a discussion it is completely acceptable to point it out. I am not a victim in any way, nor claiming to be one.

Anonymous wrote:Others are not seeing this attack.

I'll only respond to you since I cannot be sure there are others who wish you to speak for them. The fact that you are not seeing it is because it appears you do not know what one is. It's when you criticize the messenger personally, instead of the substance of the message.

Anonymous wrote:In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

1. I did not make the original claim, the person making the claim has the burden of proof
2. Despite that, I actually DID provide data to the contrary
3. If demanding people provide evidence to support their claims is "aggressive", then I do not mind being labeled as such. Better than than some poor kid not apply to Duke because of some BS his mom read on DCUM.

Yikes, you are like a dog with a bone. Just trying to give you the perspective you are missing. But, whatever, man.

Responding to you makes me a “ Dog with a bone”?

And you know that is yet another ad hominem right? Too funny.

So, now you are claiming to be the subject of multiple "ad hominem" attacks (at least in your estimation). But, you are not playing the victim. Got it.

Respectfully, several of you do not understand what an ad hominem attack is, and how there is a logical fallacy of that name. It's taught in philospohy and rhetoric curriculums. It has nothing to do with being a "victim" (by the way, I am not sure why "victim" is pejorative, but that's another argument).

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for 'argument to the person'), refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on deduction or syllogism, but on an attribute of the person putting it forward.

Nothing about "victim", and I took no offense. It's simply an academically established term for the flaw in your logical argument.

No, it really isn't. You have to look that up.

I have, and I included the links above for you to do the same if you wish. Google will give you several others, all of which show how calling someone "dog with a bone" or saying "I am just suggesting that your communications style may be lacking." are comments about the person making the point, and offer no substantive response to the point itself.

Have a nice day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they go the extra mile? Do they love to learn? Are they scholarly with a natural gift for academic pursuits? Are they engaged deeply and for a sustained period ( years) with ECs of interest? Are they distinguished participants in those ECs? Are they a real standout in a particular discipline?

Unless they have some hook, that is the type of candidate they are up against to gain admittance at top universities. Top grades and scores are not enough....all the applicants admitted have that.

+1

I have said in this board before that there is a difference between a high academically performing kid and a truly gifted child. Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated.

" Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated." - Not ALL accepted HYPSM kids truly have these traits. Many extrapolate what they do. There is NO validation/verification done by the schools. I understand it's hard to do that for every applicant. But once they have shortlisted, they can atleast spot check one per every 100 application or something like that. Atleast the schools can verify the few things in the application that they considered for admission. This "holistic" approach truly benefits only a small percentage. There are a lot that just game the system.

Not really. Why would a system gamer want to go those schools anyway?

one example of gaming the system - starting a charity organization or a tutoring agency. the website will talk have pics, info, etc projecting as if the org is doing amazing things but in reality it's not. And their essays will talk a lot about these amazing things which wouldn't have happened in that magnitude in reality. I personally know 3 such kids. 2 got into Princeton and 1 to Harvard. They are academically high achieving kids for sure but not as heavily involved in community service / leadership which they claim to be in their LinkedIn profile and their charity/tutoring websites.

Silly.. are they going to game the system for the 4 years they are there as well? Waste if a college education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you claim ad hominem attack, you are claiming to be the victim. That's what that means.

No that is NOT what it means, and I posted the definition above. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, and when one is used in a discussion it is completely acceptable to point it out. I am not a victim in any way, nor claiming to be one.

Anonymous wrote:Others are not seeing this attack.

I'll only respond to you since I cannot be sure there are others who wish you to speak for them. The fact that you are not seeing it is because it appears you do not know what one is. It's when you criticize the messenger personally, instead of the substance of the message.

Anonymous wrote:In fact, as I said previously, you come off as the aggressor here, demanding proof from others, offering none for yourself and calling "attack" when someone says as much. You seem to be doing what you are claiming others are doing!

1. I did not make the original claim, the person making the claim has the burden of proof
2. Despite that, I actually DID provide data to the contrary
3. If demanding people provide evidence to support their claims is "aggressive", then I do not mind being labeled as such. Better than than some poor kid not apply to Duke because of some BS his mom read on DCUM.

Yikes, you are like a dog with a bone. Just trying to give you the perspective you are missing. But, whatever, man.

Responding to you makes me a “ Dog with a bone”?

And you know that is yet another ad hominem right? Too funny.

So, now you are claiming to be the subject of multiple "ad hominem" attacks (at least in your estimation). But, you are not playing the victim. Got it.

Respectfully, several of you do not understand what an ad hominem attack is, and how there is a logical fallacy of that name. It's taught in philospohy and rhetoric curriculums. It has nothing to do with being a "victim" (by the way, I am not sure why "victim" is pejorative, but that's another argument).

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for 'argument to the person'), refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on deduction or syllogism, but on an attribute of the person putting it forward.

Nothing about "victim", and I took no offense. It's simply an academically established term for the flaw in your logical argument.

No, it really isn't. You have to look that up.

I have, and I included the links above for you to do the same if you wish. Google will give you several others, all of which show how calling someone "dog with a bone" or saying "I am just suggesting that your communications style may be lacking." are comments about the person making the point, and offer no substantive response to the point itself.

Have a nice day.

OMG. This is insane. (*Before the "not-playing-the-victim" PP claims another ad hominem attack, please note that I said *this*).

If you can't figure out the difference between a critique on an argument focus and a personal attack, no dictionary will help!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they go the extra mile? Do they love to learn? Are they scholarly with a natural gift for academic pursuits? Are they engaged deeply and for a sustained period ( years) with ECs of interest? Are they distinguished participants in those ECs? Are they a real standout in a particular discipline?

Unless they have some hook, that is the type of candidate they are up against to gain admittance at top universities. Top grades and scores are not enough....all the applicants admitted have that.

+1

I have said in this board before that there is a difference between a high academically performing kid and a truly gifted child. Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated.

" Intellectual curiosity, unique interests, superior performance in a specific area need to be demonstrated." - Not ALL accepted HYPSM kids truly have these traits. Many extrapolate what they do. There is NO validation/verification done by the schools. I understand it's hard to do that for every applicant. But once they have shortlisted, they can atleast spot check one per every 100 application or something like that. Atleast the schools can verify the few things in the application that they considered for admission. This "holistic" approach truly benefits only a small percentage. There are a lot that just game the system.

Not really. Why would a system gamer want to go those schools anyway?

one example of gaming the system - starting a charity organization or a tutoring agency. the website will talk have pics, info, etc projecting as if the org is doing amazing things but in reality it's not. And their essays will talk a lot about these amazing things which wouldn't have happened in that magnitude in reality. I personally know 3 such kids. 2 got into Princeton and 1 to Harvard. They are academically high achieving kids for sure but not as heavily involved in community service / leadership which they claim to be in their LinkedIn profile and their charity/tutoring websites.

Silly.. are they going to game the system for the 4 years they are there as well? Waste if a college education.

NP: yes, you are naïve. There are many kids that game the system because they want to attend top schools like Harvard for social capital.