College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive: Super High Stat Kids are not "a dime a dozen."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is how I feel as well. Think about how insane it is that these kids feel compelled to do all they do to get into college.
and realize they will stop doing all of it as soon as they get the acceptance

At the top schools, this is simply untrue. The level of participation in ECs is VERY high. It's a rare student at the Ivies who doesn't do anything else. That's also true at the top LACs--Williams. Amherst, Swarthmore, etc.

Granted,sometimes it's a different EC. A top debater might get involved itne campus radio station's news or opinion programs. A musician might get involved in a program teaching inner city kids to play musical instruments, etc.

Most kids who genuinely excel in ECs continue doing the same one or an adjacent one though. They play in the student orchestra, sing in the glee club or opera, dance, work on a student publication, play a varsity or club sport, participate in Model UN, Debate or political groups, get involved in a number of different community service groups, etc.

Indeed, one of the common complaints about the top colleges is hard it can be to get into the most desirable ECs.

[Anonymous]

1500 has been the marker for many, many years. I believe it still is. I doubt many, if any, admissions officers care about a 1550 vs a 1540. Or a 1530 vs a 1570. All within the same standard deviation to account for those test takers having a good day vs those having a bad day.

Anyone in the 1500+ bucket gets extra attention paid to their ECs and other achievements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

Only because those 20+ schools realize that the "best & brightest" is no only the kids with 1550+ SAT scores. They smartly realize that 1500 (or whatever number) is enough to say "kid makes the academic cut". they'd rather have a variety of students who excel in different areas than a freshman class of 1580-1600 kids. Look around you in the real world---welcome to life, you will work alongside people who went to colleges you literally have never heard of, yet they are same age or only 5 years older and you might report to them (gasp, the horrors!!!). Go look at the C suite and the next 2 levels down at your company---good chance less than 10% went to an "elite school", yet somehow they are excelling in their careers. Because it's what you do, not where you do it (at least for college---on the job, yes where you work and the connections from that and quality of your experiences will change where your next job might be).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You will only hear “a dime a dozen” to describe a high stats kid here on dcum. In reality there are only a couple thousand these high stats > 1550 in the real world.

But that 1560 is really no different than a 1480-1520. It's really not. Yes it's different than a 1350, but not a 1500. That is where the problem lies---people think the very very high stats differentiate you from others, it doesn't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

Only because those 20+ schools realize that the "best & brightest" is no only the kids with 1550+ SAT scores. They smartly realize that 1500 (or whatever number) is enough to say "kid makes the academic cut". they'd rather have a variety of students who excel in different areas than a freshman class of 1580-1600 kids. Look around you in the real world---welcome to life, you will work alongside people who went to colleges you literally have never heard of, yet they are same age or only 5 years older and you might report to them (gasp, the horrors!!!). Go look at the C suite and the next 2 levels down at your company---good chance less than 10% went to an "elite school", yet somehow they are excelling in their careers. Because it's what you do, not where you do it (at least for college---on the job, yes where you work and the connections from that and quality of your experiences will change where your next job might be).

Made the academic cut for Harvard remedial math class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.





The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

High test score does not equal “intellectual.” Holistic admissions is designed to create an interesting intellectual community. That’s why backgrounds and experiences matter—they are what develop your intellect and your perspectives. And I say this as the parent of one kid with a perfect ACT score and another who struggled on standardized tests; this factor has NO correlation with who they are intellectually and what they bring to a university community.

Exactly! I have a 1200 and a 1520 kid. The 1200 is not "dumb" and if anything has more common sense. They graduated a T100 in 4 years (on time despite major change), started a job right after graduation at a great company and is doing well 3 years later.

The other is very smart, more motivated with academics, but sometimes I wonder where the common sense is. They will also do exceedingly well in life, but not incrementally more so than my "lesser academic kid". While yes, they don't belong on the same college campus---the 1200 kid found several schools in the 75-100 range that were perfect for them and got great merit (and graduated form one with a 3.5 gpa despite tanking it with their original major).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

That is a mistake on the Questbridge site. Swat took 15 QB kids in the class of 28 and 15 in the class of 27.

Don't bother with data. The people who want to blame the "undeserving" poor of darker skin colors will continue to do so, despite facts showing that legacy, donor and athletic preferences far outweigh any preferences for the poor.

Why are people bitter about donor preference? How do you think the schools got the money to cover the cost of educating FGLI?

Then just rip off the bandaid and auction off slots to the highest bidder.

I see your point but that's a short-term thinking. Harvard builds relationships with influential families over generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

Only because those 20+ schools realize that the "best & brightest" is no only the kids with 1550+ SAT scores. They smartly realize that 1500 (or whatever number) is enough to say "kid makes the academic cut". they'd rather have a variety of students who excel in different areas than a freshman class of 1580-1600 kids. Look around you in the real world---welcome to life, you will work alongside people who went to colleges you literally have never heard of, yet they are same age or only 5 years older and you might report to them (gasp, the horrors!!!). Go look at the C suite and the next 2 levels down at your company---good chance less than 10% went to an "elite school", yet somehow they are excelling in their careers. Because it's what you do, not where you do it (at least for college---on the job, yes where you work and the connections from that and quality of your experiences will change where your next job might be).

Made the academic cut for Harvard remedial math class?

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

That is a mistake on the Questbridge site. Swat took 15 QB kids in the class of 28 and 15 in the class of 27.

Don't bother with data. The people who want to blame the "undeserving" poor of darker skin colors will continue to do so, despite facts showing that legacy, donor and athletic preferences far outweigh any preferences for the poor.

Why are people bitter about donor preference? How do you think the schools got the money to cover the cost of educating FGLI?

Then just rip off the bandaid and auction off slots to the highest bidder.

I see your point but that's a short-term thinking. Harvard builds relationships with influential families over generations.

oh good lord. what kind of incestuous wealth hoarding is this

[Anonymous]

Here's the flaw in this position:

It mostly DOES work that way, when talking about t20 as this article does, and definitely t30 or so).

But people are fixated on the t10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

That is a mistake on the Questbridge site. Swat took 15 QB kids in the class of 28 and 15 in the class of 27.

Don't bother with data. The people who want to blame the "undeserving" poor of darker skin colors will continue to do so, despite facts showing that legacy, donor and athletic preferences far outweigh any preferences for the poor.

Why are people bitter about donor preference? How do you think the schools got the money to cover the cost of educating FGLI?

Then just rip off the bandaid and auction off slots to the highest bidder.

That doesn’t work. The whole point of the current messy system is that rich kids get to imagine that they’re smart and smart kids get to imagine they’re part of the elite. It only works because they cross the streams.

It's not imagination. Smart kid at Harvard has an idea and needs rich friends at Harvard to support it. Isn't that what happened with Facebook?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

That is a mistake on the Questbridge site. Swat took 15 QB kids in the class of 28 and 15 in the class of 27.

Don't bother with data. The people who want to blame the "undeserving" poor of darker skin colors will continue to do so, despite facts showing that legacy, donor and athletic preferences far outweigh any preferences for the poor.

Why are people bitter about donor preference? How do you think the schools got the money to cover the cost of educating FGLI?

Then just rip off the bandaid and auction off slots to the highest bidder.

That doesn’t work. The whole point of the current messy system is that rich kids get to imagine that they’re smart and smart kids get to imagine they’re part of the elite. It only works because they cross the streams.

It's not imagination. Smart kid at Harvard has an idea and needs rich friends at Harvard to support it. Isn't that what happened with Facebook?

If smart kid at State U has a good enough idea, why Wouldn't rich people at Harvard still invest? Investment returns are invest returns right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

That is a mistake on the Questbridge site. Swat took 15 QB kids in the class of 28 and 15 in the class of 27.

Don't bother with data. The people who want to blame the "undeserving" poor of darker skin colors will continue to do so, despite facts showing that legacy, donor and athletic preferences far outweigh any preferences for the poor.

Why are people bitter about donor preference? How do you think the schools got the money to cover the cost of educating FGLI?

Then just rip off the bandaid and auction off slots to the highest bidder.

That doesn’t work. The whole point of the current messy system is that rich kids get to imagine that they’re smart and smart kids get to imagine they’re part of the elite. It only works because they cross the streams.

It's not imagination. Smart kid at Harvard has an idea and needs rich friends at Harvard to support it. Isn't that what happened with Facebook?

If smart kid at State U has a good enough idea, why Wouldn't rich people at Harvard still invest? Investment returns are invest returns right?

In theory friends and family round of funding is unnecessary but in reality? I think that's how Zuck got started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.





The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

High test score does not equal “intellectual.” Holistic admissions is designed to create an interesting intellectual community. That’s why backgrounds and experiences matter—they are what develop your intellect and your perspectives. And I say this as the parent of one kid with a perfect ACT score and another who struggled on standardized tests; this factor has NO correlation with who they are intellectually and what they bring to a university community.

Exactly! I have a 1200 and a 1520 kid. The 1200 is not "dumb" and if anything has more common sense. They graduated a T100 in 4 years (on time despite major change), started a job right after graduation at a great company and is doing well 3 years later.

While my 1110 is outgoing, my 1560 is much smarter and displays significantly more common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

Only because those 20+ schools realize that the "best & brightest" is no only the kids with 1550+ SAT scores. They smartly realize that 1500 (or whatever number) is enough to say "kid makes the academic cut". they'd rather have a variety of students who excel in different areas than a freshman class of 1580-1600 kids. Look around you in the real world---welcome to life, you will work alongside people who went to colleges you literally have never heard of, yet they are same age or only 5 years older and you might report to them (gasp, the horrors!!!). Go look at the C suite and the next 2 levels down at your company---good chance less than 10% went to an "elite school", yet somehow they are excelling in their careers. Because it's what you do, not where you do it (at least for college---on the job, yes where you work and the connections from that and quality of your experiences will change where your next job might be).

Made the academic cut for Harvard remedial math class?

Enough with the whining about the Harvard remedial math class. There may be a few kids who need it, but most of those undergrads are better at math than 99% of the people on DCUM.