Why is it so much harder to get into a top school now?

[Anonymous]

There are more top schools now

USC, Boston College, Northeastern & most state flagships used to be total jokes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like if a kid went into a Time Machine and went back five years, it seems with the exact same profile he or she would likely get into a more selective college. I understand kids are applying to more schools but that also means yield has to decline. But it seems there is a much larger pool of highly qualified applicants to top colleges or at least it is incrementally more difficult for a high stat kid to get accepted into his or her preferred school. Why is this?

Go back 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

All this says is the only people this poster things are high brain power kids are middle class white kids. Clearly has no problem with legacies and athletic recruits or donor kids. Just people she thinks might possibly be brown.

Do you actually think Black, Hispanic and FGLI kids are totally on par with their White/Asian counterparts at a given school? It doesn't make sense given that we know they are given preferential treatment. It would be like saying legacy kids and athletes are on par with non-legacy and non-athletes. If a certain group is given preference for something, by definition the academic quality should be lower. DEI is being done for social and political reasons- the schools want to give more opportunities to disadvantaged groups and they are willing to compromise on all kinds of things to make that happen. Just like when a school makes compromises because it wants to win a lacrosse championship.

This post coveys such a lack of understanding of education and such a limited concept of what it means to be "on par." Test scores aren't an objective measure of intelligence. Many qualities may be aspects of an exceptional student -- intelligence, organizational abilities, creative abilities, intuitive qualities, self knowledge/awareness, empathy, intellectual curiosity, individual talents, etc etc. But, abilities are a kind of base requirement. Schools with highly competitive admissions also select students not only for their abilities but also for the community they will create. That diversity in community, in turn, adds to the educational experience of all students.

It is also racial bias targeting black/brown students as not "on par."

So when schools prioritze admitting athletes, there is massive academic degradation, but when they prioritize race, there is none? How is this possible? I get it - test scores don't tell the whole story - but if you are pushing on certain variables you are de-emphasizing other variables. We just have to be honest here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

I think you mean the kids who have had enrichment opportunities, connections or other advantages. That is largely the group that "used to exist mainly at top 25." Good test scores don't necessarily equate to smarter or better student. They are one of many factors to consider

It's not just test scores although that is part of it. The top schools are increasingly picking kids based on ideological priorities not ability, whether ability is a result of "privilege" or not. A lot of ability now resides at lower ranked schools, whereas in the past, only kids with less ability would normally attend such schools. It's also grade inflation- between lack of test scores and fake grades, top 25 schools may not be doing as good a job as they used to identifying the best and the brightest.

PP here. Disagree. There are so many highly qualified kids, so it's not like top schools are passing on a greater asset to accept a lesser one. That essentially what you are hinting at, and that would be false. Top schools are picking students that are highly competitive academically but also may bring something else to the table. Mine brought professional acting experience and concert level music skills to her magnet math basis. But, I would agree that there are plenty of bright and capable students in all tiers of schools. I just think this argument that now mid tier schools have the "smartest" students is based on fallacy (SAT / intelligence correlation) with a dash of sour grapes. We have more qualified, motivated students applying to top schools, and we need to expand our notions of what top schools are and where excellent education happens. So much of it is what students put into it anyway.

I don't think the midtier schools have the smartest. The top schools still do, although they have a lot of not so smartest ones floating around now too. I am saying "the smartest" used to really only be in the top 20 schools and now they are all over the place. Kids with Ivy League stats didn't used to go to Wake Forest or Franklin and Marshall. Now they do.

In terms of these special abilities, which are the ultimate form of privilege as they require as massive financial and time commitment from an early age... my feeling is, who gives a crap? I think these schools fetishize this stuff way too much. But they have the luxury of beingn able to prioritize these unique talents.

The admissions committees give a crap. they are choosing one kid out of a dozen for admission. even when they discard the bottom 10, they still have to choose from the remaining two. One is concert pianist and one is not so they go with the concert pianist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

I think you mean the kids who have had enrichment opportunities, connections or other advantages. That is largely the group that "used to exist mainly at top 25." Good test scores don't necessarily equate to smarter or better student. They are one of many factors to consider

It's not just test scores although that is part of it. The top schools are increasingly picking kids based on ideological priorities not ability, whether ability is a result of "privilege" or not. A lot of ability now resides at lower ranked schools, whereas in the past, only kids with less ability would normally attend such schools. It's also grade inflation- between lack of test scores and fake grades, top 25 schools may not be doing as good a job as they used to identifying the best and the brightest.

PP here. Disagree. There are so many highly qualified kids, so it's not like top schools are passing on a greater asset to accept a lesser one. That essentially what you are hinting at, and that would be false. Top schools are picking students that are highly competitive academically but also may bring something else to the table. Mine brought professional acting experience and concert level music skills to her magnet math basis. But, I would agree that there are plenty of bright and capable students in all tiers of schools. I just think this argument that now mid tier schools have the "smartest" students is based on fallacy (SAT / intelligence correlation) with a dash of sour grapes. We have more qualified, motivated students applying to top schools, and we need to expand our notions of what top schools are and where excellent education happens. So much of it is what students put into it anyway.

I don't think the midtier schools have the smartest. The top schools still do, although they have a lot of not so smartest ones floating around now too. I am saying "the smartest" used to really only be in the top 20 schools and now they are all over the place. Kids with Ivy League stats didn't used to go to Wake Forest or Franklin and Marshall. Now they do.

In terms of these special abilities, which are the ultimate form of privilege as they require as massive financial and time commitment from an early age... my feeling is, who gives a crap? I think these schools fetishize this stuff way too much. But they have the luxury of beingn able to prioritize these unique talents.

The admissions committees give a crap. they are choosing one kid out of a dozen for admission. even when they discard the bottom 10, they still have to choose from the remaining two. One is concert pianist and one is not so they go with the concert pianist.

yes, they do. I'm just questioning why they do it. Every kid I know who got into a top school for special ability had tens of thousands of dollars thrown at him or her to develop that ability.

[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:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

All this says is the only people this poster things are high brain power kids are middle class white kids. Clearly has no problem with legacies and athletic recruits or donor kids. Just people she thinks might possibly be brown.

Do you actually think Black, Hispanic and FGLI kids are totally on par with their White/Asian counterparts at a given school? It doesn't make sense given that we know they are given preferential treatment. It would be like saying legacy kids and athletes are on par with non-legacy and non-athletes. If a certain group is given preference for something, by definition the academic quality should be lower. DEI is being done for social and political reasons- the schools want to give more opportunities to disadvantaged groups and they are willing to compromise on all kinds of things to make that happen. Just like when a school makes compromises because it wants to win a lacrosse championship.

So if that’s what you think why are you only complaining about one or two categories? Either complain about them all or none of them. It’s the blatant racism that bothers me- the idea that “oh we know colleges were so meritocratic back in the day because there were no black kids”

And I do think they are on par. The misconception is that college admissions is some sort of race where the “top” 1000 candidates win. It’s not nor has it ever been. Students pass a certain hurdle on academics and then are sorted from there. It’s not some reward that you earn.

I went to HYP a long time ago but diversity was still practiced. The smartest kids were obvioulsy the ones who got in mainly on academics. They tended to be geniuses of sorts. The kids who got an assist for being rich, athletic, black/Hispanic, legacy--they were generally smart but not of the same caliber with some exceptions of course. In some diversity cases as with athlete cases, I felt they really didn't deserve to be there from an intellectual/academic perspective--like the school pushed the envelope a bit too far. We don't have to pretend that kids chosen for diversity are on average going to be totally on par with kids chosen despite diversity.

So what? They’re still smart and can do the work.

The dumbest people I met in college were multi-generation legacies and donor kids. By far. And they were almost always white.

You are no longer an elite institution if the bar has been dropped to being able to get a B- in sociology. These schools are supposed to house the best and the brightest in the country. That is what makes them elite.

You think that’s where the bar was when Kennedy went to Harvard or Bush went to Yale? Your sole measure of a college’s elite status is how white and rich the students are.

100% agree. These schools were “elite” because the of the wealth and connections. Sure, they also picked some genius unconnected kids to round it out. The “best and brightest” has a different meaning than you think. It was never only the top test scorers. They want future connections and future donors. Those are not always (and have never always been) the smartest people from an IQ perspective.

Yes in the 50s and 60s they were country clubs but these schools became a lot more meritorcratic in the 80s and 90s. But in terms of eliteness, if the student body possesses neither fancy connections nor extraordinary ability, what makes it elite? If half the school is URM and FG's who are just smart enough to "do the work" and another quarter is athletes, it ain't what it used to be perhaps.

100% agree. So many middle class and immigrant families see the Ivy League schools as the ultimate ticket to — whatever. But if your kid is no longer rooming with, befriending, making lifelong connections with, or marrying the children of the upper class (with generational wealth and the connections that come along with it), how is the school really elite? This is the main advantage it confers, and not realizing this is perhaps another indicator that you are not from this social class. The education is great, but not really any better than lots of other top 50 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

NP. And so what if it’s discriminatory. We discriminate every day. If you choose a salad instead of fries as your side dish, you have discriminated. So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

This. Schools know they need to drop their academic standards to maintain enrollment because of the demographic cliff. The trick was always going to be dropping standards without being called out on it or losing ground on the USNWR rankings. Along came COVID and an excuse to go test optional and they all ran with it. The bridge classes (after COVID and before the 2008 babies) are getting squeezed.

This implies it has become more difficult for high stat kids to get in because they are sort of arbitrarily giving seats to no stat kids.

This^. There are so many type of students picked for a college's required makeup of student body. From race, gender, sexual orientation, family income, athletics, academics, extracurriculars, legacy, leadership, fame, donation, connections, experiences, geography etc etc. You can do everything right but still not get picked because you aren't what they are looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

I think you mean the kids who have had enrichment opportunities, connections or other advantages. That is largely the group that "used to exist mainly at top 25." Good test scores don't necessarily equate to smarter or better student. They are one of many factors to consider

It's not just test scores although that is part of it. The top schools are increasingly picking kids based on ideological priorities not ability, whether ability is a result of "privilege" or not. A lot of ability now resides at lower ranked schools, whereas in the past, only kids with less ability would normally attend such schools. It's also grade inflation- between lack of test scores and fake grades, top 25 schools may not be doing as good a job as they used to identifying the best and the brightest.

The top schools continue to do what they were designed to do: confer cultural capital. That is why there is so much handwringing and insecurity in this forum and across the country.

But that cultural capital is being extended into lower ranked schools, because intellectual capital is being injected into lower ranked schools. To the extent these top ranked schools are just overflowing with DEI and FGLI kids, will that cultural capital be preserved. I also wonder- are kids with special talents like music better prospective employees than the well rounded kids the Ivies used to accept but now scoff at? Worth asking.

I've yet to see grads at lower ranked schools invent novel products or companies.

Do you not see it or is it just that the not-elite school in their biographies are not mentioned or remembered?

My DD goes to Juniata College, definitely not a selective school but it counts among its alumni William J. Von Liebig (science building is named for him) who "held 33 patents for vascular prostheses, and his inventions have made significant contributions to the field of vascular surgery, particularly to the technologic advancement of textile vascular grafts used in the reconstruction and replacement of human arteries." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0741521499702582

And the inventor of Teflon, Kenneth Berry. And a Nobel prize winner in physics, Dr. William Phillips. Not saying that's the norm for grads but I've noticed that often news reports about accomplished people will only cite a person's undergrad if it's considered prestigious which just reinforces this idea that only people from those schools are doing great things.

I just took a look through the Forbes 30 Under 30 for Science -- a bunch of people inventing novel products/companies and doing groundbreaking research. Yes, a lot of them went to undergrad at places like Stanford, JHU, UCLA, UT Austin. But there's also WPI, Cal State Long Beach, University of Tulsa, Buffalo State, and VCU represented.

[Anonymous]

What are you considering a top school? Because the top 25 have always been difficult to get into, except maybe USC/NYU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

I think you mean the kids who have had enrichment opportunities, connections or other advantages. That is largely the group that "used to exist mainly at top 25." Good test scores don't necessarily equate to smarter or better student. They are one of many factors to consider

It's not just test scores although that is part of it. The top schools are increasingly picking kids based on ideological priorities not ability, whether ability is a result of "privilege" or not. A lot of ability now resides at lower ranked schools, whereas in the past, only kids with less ability would normally attend such schools. It's also grade inflation- between lack of test scores and fake grades, top 25 schools may not be doing as good a job as they used to identifying the best and the brightest.

PP here. Disagree. There are so many highly qualified kids, so it's not like top schools are passing on a greater asset to accept a lesser one. That essentially what you are hinting at, and that would be false. Top schools are picking students that are highly competitive academically but also may bring something else to the table. Mine brought professional acting experience and concert level music skills to her magnet math basis. But, I would agree that there are plenty of bright and capable students in all tiers of schools. I just think this argument that now mid tier schools have the "smartest" students is based on fallacy (SAT / intelligence correlation) with a dash of sour grapes. We have more qualified, motivated students applying to top schools, and we need to expand our notions of what top schools are and where excellent education happens. So much of it is what students put into it anyway.

I don't think the midtier schools have the smartest. The top schools still do, although they have a lot of not so smartest ones floating around now too. I am saying "the smartest" used to really only be in the top 20 schools and now they are all over the place. Kids with Ivy League stats didn't used to go to Wake Forest or Franklin and Marshall. Now they do.

In terms of these special abilities, which are the ultimate form of privilege as they require as massive financial and time commitment from an early age... my feeling is, who gives a crap? I think these schools fetishize this stuff way too much. But they have the luxury of beingn able to prioritize these unique talents.

The admissions committees give a crap. they are choosing one kid out of a dozen for admission. even when they discard the bottom 10, they still have to choose from the remaining two. One is concert pianist and one is not so they go with the concert pianist.

yes, they do. I'm just questioning why they do it. Every kid I know who got into a top school for special ability had tens of thousands of dollars thrown at him or her to develop that ability.

The music department wants the concert pianist. Every department wants to survive and thrive so they are looking for the best writers or researchers or artists or robot builders or whatever to come into their departments and distinguish the department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.