Theories as to why this year's acceptances were so tough...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some kids cannot write a proper essay when they arrive.

Wouldn't the AOs be able to discern this from an application?

No. Application essays tend to be heavily revised and reviewed. Some by professionals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The ivies + s + mit are going to eventually be 50+ international students

Even if you take away the fact that academically these international students are light years ahead of US students, they are all full pay and often with considerable donations

Where are you getting this? Harvard has the same financial aid process for international and domestic students. Brown plans to move to need-blind admissions for international students with the class of 2029.

The need based admissions for international students will be from URM equivalent places and will not be in lieu of the financial source nations

So what does this mean?

Those that are seeking financial aid will be competing for a shrinking pot + those that are providing the financial source will have increasingly greater influence + demand from these colleges

People often forget that the elite colleges operate their institutions much like successful business and hence why some of these ivies have greater wealth than most countries in the world (compare endowments compared to a country's foreign reserves).

Harvard which has about 22k students has an endowment (again sourced from full pay + donations) is $53 billion which is about the same as the foreign reserves of Sweden or Netherlands and greater than any Latin American or South American nation except Brazil and Mexico

That is just one country, Yale is $42 billion, Stanford $38 billion, Princeton $38 billion

This endowment comes from tuition, donors and managed by investment managers, so full pay + donation student is inherently of greater value than somebody that is clamoring for financial aid

This is gibberish.

This is why you got rejected from ivies or if you did attend are probably not donating back a meaningful amount, you think you are playing checkers but the game is actually chess

t. family + extended family 31 ivy grads and yes we were full pay + donate

And this proves that the least qualified attendees of an Ivy League school are the donor kids.

Every male in family scored over 1500+ on sat to include back in the day before score readjustments, most of the females too

All of us graduated top 2% in competitive high schools that ranks kids, 2 valedictorians, 3 salutatorians

7 were all-state athletes to include 3 in "real" male competitive sports and D1 athletes, 1 was an all-american

3 class presidents, 7 vice presidents

And 0 of these people actually existed

Its very difficult for somebody like you to understand but the ivies are filled with people just like this, 99%+ are exceptional and literally only the "best" get offers of admission

Every year in every generation the top kids go to ivies + s + mit, its the same story, if you are truly in the top 1% in criteria that the elites care about you are going to be offered admissions to ivies, its actually a very fair and straightforward process but it stings to those sitting outside of that top 1%

Walk around any of the ivies on any given day, there are thousands of students that fill this criteria and believe it or not they all deserved to be there

To be honest, as an ivy grad, I'm actually surprised there is not a backlash against the ivies because of this inherent elitism, so if a kid is say top 2% or 3% do they suck? No, but its an unspoken acceptance by those on the inside that those on the outside are somehow less than those on the inside and this becomes more of a thing the more careers advance to say public company CEOs, private equity partners, top 10 law partners, top 5 investment banks, etc...

So you haven’t actually looked at the undergrad degrees of the business elite, have you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pandemic years was easier for both high stat kids and lower stat/TO kids

Its obviously easier for the lower stat/TO kids because most would never realistically get into competitive school before, some studies indicate that 90%+ of TO kids would not have been admitted in pre-pandemic conditions at elite institutions

Its also easier for high stat kids that submitted SATs because it highlights an ability and motivation to perform better relative to peers in a challenging environment, something that is considered a real-world trait necessary for success

The percentage admits went down overall but if you were to compare on an apples-to-apples basis it would look something like this illustratively:

High stat kid + SAT: pre-pandemic 10% / pandemic 20%
Low stat kid + TO: pre-pandemic 0% / pandemic 3%
Total: pre-pandemic 9% / pandemic 7%

Yes, it looks harder because the percentages went down, but colleges were flooded with applicants that historically would have no business even considering some of the more competitive schools letting alone paying the application fee.

Don't know about that illustration, but don't expect you to be a quant or anything.

How about pre TO the elite colleges were self selecting because of the high SAT, thus some great prospective students didn't apply. Under TO, many did apply and some were admitted, I e. below-the-radar talented students who the AOs liked.


Let's not over complicate this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were they really?

I was surprised at some mid-low achievers getting into schools that would normally be way beyond their reach if they had to submit scores.

Personally, I am glad to see a few schools bringing back score requirements. Grade inflation is alive and well. I mean, when you have 35 Valedictorians...what exactly is that telling us?

When they start seeing the work and the level of students admitted without scores, they can judge if they think that is a good option. From talking to someone in admissions at a top school, it's not looking too good for remaining 'test optional'. The rigor of high schools varies so much, as well as the level of education. Some kids cannot write a proper essay when they arrive.

When is this? You mean based on experiences from just this past year? Because these schools have excellent freshmen retention rates and graduation rates.

The need to have excellent retention to keep their rank; that doesn’t mean they are thrilled with the quality of work coming from everyone they are retaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were they really?

I was surprised at some mid-low achievers getting into schools that would normally be way beyond their reach if they had to submit scores.

Personally, I am glad to see a few schools bringing back score requirements. Grade inflation is alive and well. I mean, when you have 35 Valedictorians...what exactly is that telling us?

When they start seeing the work and the level of students admitted without scores, they can judge if they think that is a good option. From talking to someone in admissions at a top school, it's not looking too good for remaining 'test optional'. The rigor of high schools varies so much, as well as the level of education. Some kids cannot write a proper essay when they arrive.

When is this? You mean based on experiences from just this past year? Because these schools have excellent freshmen retention rates and graduation rates.

The need to have excellent retention to keep their rank; that doesn’t mean they are thrilled with the quality of work coming from everyone they are retaining.

Well, if they have good retention and the kids are getting good grades, that's good enough for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The ivies + s + mit are going to eventually be 50+ international students

Even if you take away the fact that academically these international students are light years ahead of US students, they are all full pay and often with considerable donations

Where are you getting this? Harvard has the same financial aid process for international and domestic students. Brown plans to move to need-blind admissions for international students with the class of 2029.

The need based admissions for international students will be from URM equivalent places and will not be in lieu of the financial source nations

So what does this mean?

Those that are seeking financial aid will be competing for a shrinking pot + those that are providing the financial source will have increasingly greater influence + demand from these colleges

People often forget that the elite colleges operate their institutions much like successful business and hence why some of these ivies have greater wealth than most countries in the world (compare endowments compared to a country's foreign reserves).

Harvard which has about 22k students has an endowment (again sourced from full pay + donations) is $53 billion which is about the same as the foreign reserves of Sweden or Netherlands and greater than any Latin American or South American nation except Brazil and Mexico

That is just one country, Yale is $42 billion, Stanford $38 billion, Princeton $38 billion

This endowment comes from tuition, donors and managed by investment managers, so full pay + donation student is inherently of greater value than somebody that is clamoring for financial aid

This is gibberish.

This is why you got rejected from ivies or if you did attend are probably not donating back a meaningful amount, you think you are playing checkers but the game is actually chess

t. family + extended family 31 ivy grads and yes we were full pay + donate

And this proves that the least qualified attendees of an Ivy League school are the donor kids.

Every male in family scored over 1500+ on sat to include back in the day before score readjustments, most of the females too

All of us graduated top 2% in competitive high schools that ranks kids, 2 valedictorians, 3 salutatorians

7 were all-state athletes to include 3 in "real" male competitive sports and D1 athletes, 1 was an all-american

3 class presidents, 7 vice presidents

And 0 of these people actually existed

Its very difficult for somebody like you to understand but the ivies are filled with people just like this, 99%+ are exceptional and literally only the "best" get offers of admission

Every year in every generation the top kids go to ivies + s + mit, its the same story, if you are truly in the top 1% in criteria that the elites care about you are going to be offered admissions to ivies, its actually a very fair and straightforward process but it stings to those sitting outside of that top 1%

Walk around any of the ivies on any given day, there are thousands of students that fill this criteria and believe it or not they all deserved to be there

To be honest, as an ivy grad, I'm actually surprised there is not a backlash against the ivies because of this inherent elitism, so if a kid is say top 2% or 3% do they suck? No, but its an unspoken acceptance by those on the inside that those on the outside are somehow less than those on the inside and this becomes more of a thing the more careers advance to say public company CEOs, private equity partners, top 10 law partners, top 5 investment banks, etc...

Lol. So you are saying that Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Brett Kavanaugh etc.. all were top 1% and deserved to be there because of that? No other reason ??hmmm..

[Anonymous]

Mandatory P/F did not help top students. Now they are competing with students who just barely passed. Grades are used for a reason. I’m talking about grad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The ivies + s + mit are going to eventually be 50+ international students

Even if you take away the fact that academically these international students are light years ahead of US students, they are all full pay and often with considerable donations

Where are you getting this? Harvard has the same financial aid process for international and domestic students. Brown plans to move to need-blind admissions for international students with the class of 2029.

The need based admissions for international students will be from URM equivalent places and will not be in lieu of the financial source nations

So what does this mean?

Those that are seeking financial aid will be competing for a shrinking pot + those that are providing the financial source will have increasingly greater influence + demand from these colleges

People often forget that the elite colleges operate their institutions much like successful business and hence why some of these ivies have greater wealth than most countries in the world (compare endowments compared to a country's foreign reserves).

Harvard which has about 22k students has an endowment (again sourced from full pay + donations) is $53 billion which is about the same as the foreign reserves of Sweden or Netherlands and greater than any Latin American or South American nation except Brazil and Mexico

That is just one country, Yale is $42 billion, Stanford $38 billion, Princeton $38 billion

This endowment comes from tuition, donors and managed by investment managers, so full pay + donation student is inherently of greater value than somebody that is clamoring for financial aid

This is gibberish.

This is why you got rejected from ivies or if you did attend are probably not donating back a meaningful amount, you think you are playing checkers but the game is actually chess

t. family + extended family 31 ivy grads and yes we were full pay + donate

And this proves that the least qualified attendees of an Ivy League school are the donor kids.

Every male in family scored over 1500+ on sat to include back in the day before score readjustments, most of the females too

All of us graduated top 2% in competitive high schools that ranks kids, 2 valedictorians, 3 salutatorians

7 were all-state athletes to include 3 in "real" male competitive sports and D1 athletes, 1 was an all-american

3 class presidents, 7 vice presidents

And 0 of these people actually existed

Its very difficult for somebody like you to understand but the ivies are filled with people just like this, 99%+ are exceptional and literally only the "best" get offers of admission

Every year in every generation the top kids go to ivies + s + mit, its the same story, if you are truly in the top 1% in criteria that the elites care about you are going to be offered admissions to ivies, its actually a very fair and straightforward process but it stings to those sitting outside of that top 1%

Walk around any of the ivies on any given day, there are thousands of students that fill this criteria and believe it or not they all deserved to be there

To be honest, as an ivy grad, I'm actually surprised there is not a backlash against the ivies because of this inherent elitism, so if a kid is say top 2% or 3% do they suck? No, but its an unspoken acceptance by those on the inside that those on the outside are somehow less than those on the inside and this becomes more of a thing the more careers advance to say public company CEOs, private equity partners, top 10 law partners, top 5 investment banks, etc...

So you haven’t actually looked at the undergrad degrees of the business elite, have you?

CEOs, wall street, Large corporate law firms, etc. (ie., professions where total comp is $10+ million annually) is disproportionately populated by ivy grads. Look at any of the 300+ multi-billion fund size PE firms, they all post profiles AND undergrad colleges for everybody from partner to associate, you will be surprised to see this common theme...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pandemic years was easier for both high stat kids and lower stat/TO kids

Its obviously easier for the lower stat/TO kids because most would never realistically get into competitive school before, some studies indicate that 90%+ of TO kids would not have been admitted in pre-pandemic conditions at elite institutions

Its also easier for high stat kids that submitted SATs because it highlights an ability and motivation to perform better relative to peers in a challenging environment, something that is considered a real-world trait necessary for success

The percentage admits went down overall but if you were to compare on an apples-to-apples basis it would look something like this illustratively:

High stat kid + SAT: pre-pandemic 10% / pandemic 20%
Low stat kid + TO: pre-pandemic 0% / pandemic 3%
Total: pre-pandemic 9% / pandemic 7%

Yes, it looks harder because the percentages went down, but colleges were flooded with applicants that historically would have no business even considering some of the more competitive schools letting alone paying the application fee.

please link these studies - I'd like to read them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pandemic years was easier for both high stat kids and lower stat/TO kids

Its obviously easier for the lower stat/TO kids because most would never realistically get into competitive school before, some studies indicate that 90%+ of TO kids would not have been admitted in pre-pandemic conditions at elite institutions

Its also easier for high stat kids that submitted SATs because it highlights an ability and motivation to perform better relative to peers in a challenging environment, something that is considered a real-world trait necessary for success

The percentage admits went down overall but if you were to compare on an apples-to-apples basis it would look something like this illustratively:

High stat kid + SAT: pre-pandemic 10% / pandemic 20%
Low stat kid + TO: pre-pandemic 0% / pandemic 3%
Total: pre-pandemic 9% / pandemic 7%

Yes, it looks harder because the percentages went down, but colleges were flooded with applicants that historically would have no business even considering some of the more competitive schools letting alone paying the application fee.

Don't know about that illustration, but don't expect you to be a quant or anything.

How about pre TO the elite colleges were self selecting because of the high SAT, thus some great prospective students didn't apply. Under TO, many did apply and some were admitted, I e. below-the-radar talented students who the AOs liked.


Let's not over complicate this.

Lol this is stupid you idiot

The fact that somebody went TO implicitly means they were NOT top level talent. The SAT is comically easy, if somebody can't score in the top 1, 2 or 3% even without test prep they do not really fit into the ivy crowd. Also, I better see a top 3% hs ranking and some EC like a state level athlete, class president, or something of that caliber. Ivies are not for the common, its for the exceptional. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The ivies + s + mit are going to eventually be 50+ international students

Even if you take away the fact that academically these international students are light years ahead of US students, they are all full pay and often with considerable donations

Where are you getting this? Harvard has the same financial aid process for international and domestic students. Brown plans to move to need-blind admissions for international students with the class of 2029.

The need based admissions for international students will be from URM equivalent places and will not be in lieu of the financial source nations

So what does this mean?

Those that are seeking financial aid will be competing for a shrinking pot + those that are providing the financial source will have increasingly greater influence + demand from these colleges

People often forget that the elite colleges operate their institutions much like successful business and hence why some of these ivies have greater wealth than most countries in the world (compare endowments compared to a country's foreign reserves).

Harvard which has about 22k students has an endowment (again sourced from full pay + donations) is $53 billion which is about the same as the foreign reserves of Sweden or Netherlands and greater than any Latin American or South American nation except Brazil and Mexico

That is just one country, Yale is $42 billion, Stanford $38 billion, Princeton $38 billion

This endowment comes from tuition, donors and managed by investment managers, so full pay + donation student is inherently of greater value than somebody that is clamoring for financial aid

This is gibberish.

This is why you got rejected from ivies or if you did attend are probably not donating back a meaningful amount, you think you are playing checkers but the game is actually chess

t. family + extended family 31 ivy grads and yes we were full pay + donate

And this proves that the least qualified attendees of an Ivy League school are the donor kids.

Every male in family scored over 1500+ on sat to include back in the day before score readjustments, most of the females too

All of us graduated top 2% in competitive high schools that ranks kids, 2 valedictorians, 3 salutatorians

7 were all-state athletes to include 3 in "real" male competitive sports and D1 athletes, 1 was an all-american

3 class presidents, 7 vice presidents

And 0 of these people actually existed

Its very difficult for somebody like you to understand but the ivies are filled with people just like this, 99%+ are exceptional and literally only the "best" get offers of admission

Every year in every generation the top kids go to ivies + s + mit, its the same story, if you are truly in the top 1% in criteria that the elites care about you are going to be offered admissions to ivies, its actually a very fair and straightforward process but it stings to those sitting outside of that top 1%

Walk around any of the ivies on any given day, there are thousands of students that fill this criteria and believe it or not they all deserved to be there

To be honest, as an ivy grad, I'm actually surprised there is not a backlash against the ivies because of this inherent elitism, so if a kid is say top 2% or 3% do they suck? No, but its an unspoken acceptance by those on the inside that those on the outside are somehow less than those on the inside and this becomes more of a thing the more careers advance to say public company CEOs, private equity partners, top 10 law partners, top 5 investment banks, etc...

So you actually believe that Donald Trump or Jared Kushner were top 1% ? Well it’s hard for people like me to believe this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The ivies + s + mit are going to eventually be 50+ international students

Even if you take away the fact that academically these international students are light years ahead of US students, they are all full pay and often with considerable donations

Where are you getting this? Harvard has the same financial aid process for international and domestic students. Brown plans to move to need-blind admissions for international students with the class of 2029.

The need based admissions for international students will be from URM equivalent places and will not be in lieu of the financial source nations

So what does this mean?

Those that are seeking financial aid will be competing for a shrinking pot + those that are providing the financial source will have increasingly greater influence + demand from these colleges

People often forget that the elite colleges operate their institutions much like successful business and hence why some of these ivies have greater wealth than most countries in the world (compare endowments compared to a country's foreign reserves).

Harvard which has about 22k students has an endowment (again sourced from full pay + donations) is $53 billion which is about the same as the foreign reserves of Sweden or Netherlands and greater than any Latin American or South American nation except Brazil and Mexico

That is just one country, Yale is $42 billion, Stanford $38 billion, Princeton $38 billion

This endowment comes from tuition, donors and managed by investment managers, so full pay + donation student is inherently of greater value than somebody that is clamoring for financial aid

This is gibberish.

This is why you got rejected from ivies or if you did attend are probably not donating back a meaningful amount, you think you are playing checkers but the game is actually chess

t. family + extended family 31 ivy grads and yes we were full pay + donate

And this proves that the least qualified attendees of an Ivy League school are the donor kids.

Every male in family scored over 1500+ on sat to include back in the day before score readjustments, most of the females too

All of us graduated top 2% in competitive high schools that ranks kids, 2 valedictorians, 3 salutatorians

7 were all-state athletes to include 3 in "real" male competitive sports and D1 athletes, 1 was an all-american

3 class presidents, 7 vice presidents

And 0 of these people actually existed

Its very difficult for somebody like you to understand but the ivies are filled with people just like this, 99%+ are exceptional and literally only the "best" get offers of admission

Every year in every generation the top kids go to ivies + s + mit, its the same story, if you are truly in the top 1% in criteria that the elites care about you are going to be offered admissions to ivies, its actually a very fair and straightforward process but it stings to those sitting outside of that top 1%

Walk around any of the ivies on any given day, there are thousands of students that fill this criteria and believe it or not they all deserved to be there

To be honest, as an ivy grad, I'm actually surprised there is not a backlash against the ivies because of this inherent elitism, so if a kid is say top 2% or 3% do they suck? No, but its an unspoken acceptance by those on the inside that those on the outside are somehow less than those on the inside and this becomes more of a thing the more careers advance to say public company CEOs, private equity partners, top 10 law partners, top 5 investment banks, etc...

Lol. So you are saying that Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Brett Kavanaugh etc.. all were top 1% and deserved to be there because of that? No other reason ??hmmm..

Absolutely yes, they are not only top 1% but probably the top 1% of the top 1%.

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Brett Kavanaugh, but to claim they are not among the elites in terms of success if more delusional than the flat earthers.

Again, the common theme is exceptionalism.

Donald Trump: multi-billionaire, hyper-charismatic to a certain demographic large enough the become the President of the US
Jared Kushner: multi-billionaire from a family even wealthier than Donald Trump, deals in high level real estate transactions that would be as confusing to most dcurbaners than trying to decipher hieroglyphics
Brett Kavanaugh: considered among the elite jurist within the law community, probably among the most constitutionalist justices with a deeper understanding of the constitution than most of the other justices let alone other lawyers, again not a fan

Just because you don't like them does not mean their are not elite talent, in fact, I would go as far as to say that because somebody like you does not like them is probably indicative of them being an elite talent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The ivies + s + mit are going to eventually be 50+ international students

Even if you take away the fact that academically these international students are light years ahead of US students, they are all full pay and often with considerable donations

Where are you getting this? Harvard has the same financial aid process for international and domestic students. Brown plans to move to need-blind admissions for international students with the class of 2029.

The need based admissions for international students will be from URM equivalent places and will not be in lieu of the financial source nations

So what does this mean?

Those that are seeking financial aid will be competing for a shrinking pot + those that are providing the financial source will have increasingly greater influence + demand from these colleges

People often forget that the elite colleges operate their institutions much like successful business and hence why some of these ivies have greater wealth than most countries in the world (compare endowments compared to a country's foreign reserves).

Harvard which has about 22k students has an endowment (again sourced from full pay + donations) is $53 billion which is about the same as the foreign reserves of Sweden or Netherlands and greater than any Latin American or South American nation except Brazil and Mexico

That is just one country, Yale is $42 billion, Stanford $38 billion, Princeton $38 billion

This endowment comes from tuition, donors and managed by investment managers, so full pay + donation student is inherently of greater value than somebody that is clamoring for financial aid

This is gibberish.

This is why you got rejected from ivies or if you did attend are probably not donating back a meaningful amount, you think you are playing checkers but the game is actually chess

t. family + extended family 31 ivy grads and yes we were full pay + donate

And this proves that the least qualified attendees of an Ivy League school are the donor kids.

Every male in family scored over 1500+ on sat to include back in the day before score readjustments, most of the females too

All of us graduated top 2% in competitive high schools that ranks kids, 2 valedictorians, 3 salutatorians

7 were all-state athletes to include 3 in "real" male competitive sports and D1 athletes, 1 was an all-american

3 class presidents, 7 vice presidents

And 0 of these people actually existed

Its very difficult for somebody like you to understand but the ivies are filled with people just like this, 99%+ are exceptional and literally only the "best" get offers of admission

Every year in every generation the top kids go to ivies + s + mit, its the same story, if you are truly in the top 1% in criteria that the elites care about you are going to be offered admissions to ivies, its actually a very fair and straightforward process but it stings to those sitting outside of that top 1%

Walk around any of the ivies on any given day, there are thousands of students that fill this criteria and believe it or not they all deserved to be there

To be honest, as an ivy grad, I'm actually surprised there is not a backlash against the ivies because of this inherent elitism, so if a kid is say top 2% or 3% do they suck? No, but its an unspoken acceptance by those on the inside that those on the outside are somehow less than those on the inside and this becomes more of a thing the more careers advance to say public company CEOs, private equity partners, top 10 law partners, top 5 investment banks, etc...

Lol. So you are saying that Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Brett Kavanaugh etc.. all were top 1% and deserved to be there because of that? No other reason ??hmmm..

This, exactly. Yes, the "elite" schools have their pick. That doesn't mean the "best" get picked (those individuals are perfect examples of not the best getting in. See also George W Bush. = a mediocre student who went Ivy). Many have hooks or there are reasons that "shape" an incoming class with specific traits or traits (and not just the usual things people think of). So stop with the "only the best are picked." That's not necessarily true.

[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:
The ivies + s + mit are going to eventually be 50+ international students

Even if you take away the fact that academically these international students are light years ahead of US students, they are all full pay and often with considerable donations

Where are you getting this? Harvard has the same financial aid process for international and domestic students. Brown plans to move to need-blind admissions for international students with the class of 2029.

The need based admissions for international students will be from URM equivalent places and will not be in lieu of the financial source nations

So what does this mean?

Those that are seeking financial aid will be competing for a shrinking pot + those that are providing the financial source will have increasingly greater influence + demand from these colleges

People often forget that the elite colleges operate their institutions much like successful business and hence why some of these ivies have greater wealth than most countries in the world (compare endowments compared to a country's foreign reserves).

Harvard which has about 22k students has an endowment (again sourced from full pay + donations) is $53 billion which is about the same as the foreign reserves of Sweden or Netherlands and greater than any Latin American or South American nation except Brazil and Mexico

That is just one country, Yale is $42 billion, Stanford $38 billion, Princeton $38 billion

This endowment comes from tuition, donors and managed by investment managers, so full pay + donation student is inherently of greater value than somebody that is clamoring for financial aid

This is gibberish.

This is why you got rejected from ivies or if you did attend are probably not donating back a meaningful amount, you think you are playing checkers but the game is actually chess

t. family + extended family 31 ivy grads and yes we were full pay + donate

And this proves that the least qualified attendees of an Ivy League school are the donor kids.

Every male in family scored over 1500+ on sat to include back in the day before score readjustments, most of the females too

All of us graduated top 2% in competitive high schools that ranks kids, 2 valedictorians, 3 salutatorians

7 were all-state athletes to include 3 in "real" male competitive sports and D1 athletes, 1 was an all-american

3 class presidents, 7 vice presidents

And 0 of these people actually existed

Its very difficult for somebody like you to understand but the ivies are filled with people just like this, 99%+ are exceptional and literally only the "best" get offers of admission

Every year in every generation the top kids go to ivies + s + mit, its the same story, if you are truly in the top 1% in criteria that the elites care about you are going to be offered admissions to ivies, its actually a very fair and straightforward process but it stings to those sitting outside of that top 1%

Walk around any of the ivies on any given day, there are thousands of students that fill this criteria and believe it or not they all deserved to be there

To be honest, as an ivy grad, I'm actually surprised there is not a backlash against the ivies because of this inherent elitism, so if a kid is say top 2% or 3% do they suck? No, but its an unspoken acceptance by those on the inside that those on the outside are somehow less than those on the inside and this becomes more of a thing the more careers advance to say public company CEOs, private equity partners, top 10 law partners, top 5 investment banks, etc...

Lol. So you are saying that Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Brett Kavanaugh etc.. all were top 1% and deserved to be there because of that? No other reason ??hmmm..

This, exactly. Yes, the "elite" schools have their pick. That doesn't mean the "best" get picked (those individuals are perfect examples of not the best getting in. See also George W Bush. = a mediocre student who went Ivy). Many have hooks or there are reasons that "shape" an incoming class with specific traits or traits (and not just the usual things people think of). So stop with the "only the best are picked." That's not necessarily true.

This delusional stupidity.

You are effectively trying to make this into a popularity contest in terms of what you think is popular.

George W. has achieved more success and given back more to his alma mater than 99% of ivy leaguers and if anything, and I say this as an ivy grad. Any objective measure proves this guy was an exceptional talent and it's with certainty that Yale and Harvard are proud to have him as among their most distinguished living grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pandemic years was easier for both high stat kids and lower stat/TO kids

Its obviously easier for the lower stat/TO kids because most would never realistically get into competitive school before, some studies indicate that 90%+ of TO kids would not have been admitted in pre-pandemic conditions at elite institutions

Its also easier for high stat kids that submitted SATs because it highlights an ability and motivation to perform better relative to peers in a challenging environment, something that is considered a real-world trait necessary for success

The percentage admits went down overall but if you were to compare on an apples-to-apples basis it would look something like this illustratively:

High stat kid + SAT: pre-pandemic 10% / pandemic 20%
Low stat kid + TO: pre-pandemic 0% / pandemic 3%
Total: pre-pandemic 9% / pandemic 7%

Yes, it looks harder because the percentages went down, but colleges were flooded with applicants that historically would have no business even considering some of the more competitive schools letting alone paying the application fee.

Don't know about that illustration, but don't expect you to be a quant or anything.

How about pre TO the elite colleges were self selecting because of the high SAT, thus some great prospective students didn't apply. Under TO, many did apply and some were admitted, I e. below-the-radar talented students who the AOs liked.


Let's not over complicate this.

Lol this is stupid you idiot

The fact that somebody went TO implicitly means they were NOT top level talent. The SAT is comically easy, if somebody can't score in the top 1, 2 or 3% even without test prep they do not really fit into the ivy crowd. Also, I better see a top 3% hs ranking and some EC like a state level athlete, class president, or something of that caliber. Ivies are not for the common, its for the exceptional. Full stop.

I guess you don't know what "optional" means.