90th percentile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand OP’s logic. There aren’t enough “top schools” to admit 10% of the entire college bound population. And also, it’s not really true that a typical 90tb percentile kid could do well at the very top schools. I want to emphasize the word “typical” in my last sentence, because tests aren’t perfect and there are always unusual exceptions. But for the most part a 90th percentile kid probably wouldn’t do well at the most rigorous schools. Even a 99th percentile kid can struggle to keep up with the 99.99th percentile kids at MIT or Caltech.

But I would agree that a 90th percentile kid could do very well at most colleges, as long as you’re not talking about the top 25-50 colleges in the entire country. There are many, many, decent colleges in the US. It’s a huge field! Not everyone can be Ivy bound.

Ok, lets calm down here. There is a total of about 40 college bound kids in the USA who are 99.99 percentile. That's a handful of students at the very top schools, assuming they all go to one. Most kids at even those top schools will never cross paths with them and won't "struggle to keep up with them", unless they choose to (and assuming these kids are fully committed to school, have no issues etc - almost certainly not true for every single one).

99th percentile should have no problem handling coursework at the most selective schools, in any subject. It's not that hard. They need to study harder than 99.9 but they can get excellent grades if they apply themselves.

95th percentile, if accepted to top school, should avoid all heavily mathy subjects. math, physics, CS... Econ is borderline - doable but with significant effort.

90th percentile can take psychology, various area studies, languages... Not easy, and they won't be the best, but they can have a decent GPA. Besides, these are kids who were #2 or #3 in their 20-person classes since pre-K. They won't be "struggling to keep up" with the geniuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think 90th percentile is a good benchmark for top schools, like the Ivy League or Stanford or MIT, where do you draw the line? The parents of 85th percentile kids probably think the difference between 90th and 85th percentile is meaningless. And the parents of 80th percentile kids, 75th percentile kids etc would also feel differently. Is it just that you don’t believe tests reveal anything?

Just to clarify,
NO ONE on here except OP has tried to say 90th%ile is a benchmark for top schools. It is far below the 25th%ile, even pre test optional. The average student at ivy/plus is 99th %ile. So 99th%ile is the benchmark, 98th as the lowest reasonable bar that is reasonable as a possible acceptance AND a decent chance of getting near average in most majors. 90th%ile is well below average at UVa, William and Mary. It is however a reasonable benchmark for many schools in the top 50-100.

Ok that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

those kids needed to switch major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think 90th percentile is a good benchmark for top schools, like the Ivy League or Stanford or MIT, where do you draw the line? The parents of 85th percentile kids probably think the difference between 90th and 85th percentile is meaningless. And the parents of 80th percentile kids, 75th percentile kids etc would also feel differently. Is it just that you don’t believe tests reveal anything?

Just to clarify,
NO ONE on here except OP has tried to say 90th%ile is a benchmark for top schools. It is far below the 25th%ile, even pre test optional. The average student at ivy/plus is 99th %ile. So 99th%ile is the benchmark, 98th as the lowest reasonable bar that is reasonable as a possible acceptance AND a decent chance of getting near average in most majors. 90th%ile is well below average at UVa, William and Mary. It is however a reasonable benchmark for many schools in the top 50-100.

These are not real percentiles. These are superscored results that greatly expand the number of "99 percenters".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

those kids needed to switch major.

Well they often do switch majors, but my point was that this is a shame, because they could still have excelled and ended up with a good stem career if they gone to school in a less competitive environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

No, it provided fame for her, which is something she prioritized. What you think people are supposed to get from ... elite schools, Olympics... is not necessarily what they want to get or what they are in fact getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

those kids needed to switch major.

Well they often do switch majors, but my point was that this is a shame, because they could still have excelled and ended up with a good stem career if they gone to school in a less competitive environment.

Perhaps, but wouldn't they come across those geniuses from other schools eventually? Or that suddenly doesn't matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

Yes particularly for stem/econ weedout heavy majors: the ones at the bottom get very discouraged and quit yet they could have reached their goal at a lesser ranked school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

Yes particularly for stem/econ weedout heavy majors: the ones at the bottom get very discouraged and quit yet they could have reached their goal at a lesser ranked school.

Maybe they should accept more 90%ilers. They already know they suck and will keep marching on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

those kids needed to switch major.

Well they often do switch majors, but my point was that this is a shame, because they could still have excelled and ended up with a good stem career if they gone to school in a less competitive environment.

Perhaps, but wouldn't they come across those geniuses from other schools eventually? Or that suddenly doesn't matter?

I’m sure they must now and then. But still, the career outcomes (in STEM) are better for you if you’re a bigger fish in a small pond vs. a smaller fish in a big pond. Better mentorship and better opportunities at the outset, more appropriate class pace, etc. all help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand OP’s logic. There aren’t enough “top schools” to admit 10% of the entire college bound population. And also, it’s not really true that a typical 90tb percentile kid could do well at the very top schools. I want to emphasize the word “typical” in my last sentence, because tests aren’t perfect and there are always unusual exceptions. But for the most part a 90th percentile kid probably wouldn’t do well at the most rigorous schools. Even a 99th percentile kid can struggle to keep up with the 99.99th percentile kids at MIT or Caltech.

But I would agree that a 90th percentile kid could do very well at most colleges, as long as you’re not talking about the top 25-50 colleges in the entire country. There are many, many, decent colleges in the US. It’s a huge field! Not everyone can be Ivy bound.

Ok, lets calm down here. There is a total of about 40 college bound kids in the USA who are 99.99 percentile. That's a handful of students at the very top schools, assuming they all go to one. Most kids at even those top schools will never cross paths with them and won't "struggle to keep up with them", unless they choose to (and assuming these kids are fully committed to school, have no issues etc - almost certainly not true for every single one).

99th percentile should have no problem handling coursework at the most selective schools, in any subject. It's not that hard. They need to study harder than 99.9 but they can get excellent grades if they apply themselves.

95th percentile, if accepted to top school, should avoid all heavily mathy subjects. math, physics, CS... Econ is borderline - doable but with significant effort.

90th percentile can take psychology, various area studies, languages... Not easy, and they won't be the best, but they can have a decent GPA. Besides, these are kids who were #2 or #3 in their 20-person classes since pre-K. They won't be "struggling to keep up" with the geniuses.

90th %ile kids are slightly above Average at our public schools. Other poster posted similar! They are not and never have been #2 or 3 in a class . They are in the 2nd or 3rd from top math level. They get in to JMU and VT if not engineering. Sometimes they get lucky and get in to William and Mary or UVA in state if they ED and grind away to get a class rank in the top 15% , but not commonly.
Of course if they get in to a top school /athlete, some big hook/, they can get a below-average 3.5 GpA in an easy major. But most do not have any chance of getting in! No rational parent would push these schools on a kid like the OP with a 1350 and above average but not top 20% grades

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raygun was “good enough” to qualify for the Olympics… but I’m still not sure that was a good idea. Just saying.

I would say, for her, it probably was a good idea, overall.

So, yeah, if Harvard calls your 90th percentile kid, let them go there. "Doing well" is very subjective anyways. Many supersmart kids get crushed when they are #2. Meanwhile someone less brilliant could be happy with their lower GPA and better in using connections provided by the brand name school.

Well it provided a lot of humor for the world, I suppose.

There was a study showing that the lowest scoring stem majors at elite schools often abandoned their fields in college, even if they were more capable than the average stem major at a lower tier school. Such kids also get more positive attention and support from professors at lower tier schools than they would at elite schools, where the superstars get all the attention. So I don’t necessarily think it’s wise to just aim for the highest ranked school.

Yes particularly for stem/econ weedout heavy majors: the ones at the bottom get very discouraged and quit yet they could have reached their goal at a lesser ranked school.

Premed is another example. They are competing with their same-school peers for grades, letters of rec, lab experience, etc.

[Anonymous]

Thanks I like this rubric! It is rational approach to top-schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who think 90th percentile is a good benchmark for top schools, like the Ivy League or Stanford or MIT, where do you draw the line? The parents of 85th percentile kids probably think the difference between 90th and 85th percentile is meaningless. And the parents of 80th percentile kids, 75th percentile kids etc would also feel differently. Is it just that you don’t believe tests reveal anything?

Just to clarify,
NO ONE on here except OP has tried to say 90th%ile is a benchmark for top schools. It is far below the 25th%ile, even pre test optional. The average student at ivy/plus is 99th %ile. So 99th%ile is the benchmark, 98th as the lowest reasonable bar that is reasonable as a possible acceptance AND a decent chance of getting near average in most majors. 90th%ile is well below average at UVa, William and Mary. It is however a reasonable benchmark for many schools in the top 50-100.

As discussed there are fewer than 40k students that are 90th+ percentile. Average freshman class size starting with top schools - around 1300 maybe? So top 25-30 ranked schools have enough space for the top 10%. No, William and Mary is not aspirational for 90th percentile students.