Success with Ivy-level admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Anonymous wrote:Others are not seeing this attack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice day.

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

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

What about the quotes and definitions are incorrect and don't apply to the comments made and quoted? Can you respond to that? Can you even try?

As for your comment that "no dictionary will help", well, yes, that has become brutally apparent to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some...don't really think there are that many that successfully game the system if you don't have that hook to get in, you better bring it to have a shot at admittance.

And it's not exactly a picnic when you get there so what is the point if you are unprepared to take advantage if you get that acceptance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

Their mission of getting into HYPSM for undergrad is accomplished. They may/will game the system for their next goal if that also relies on "subjective" measures without any validation or verification. This whole "holistic" approach is useless if the colleges don't even verify the important things. it indirectly encourages cheating, marketing & extrapolation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

Their mission of getting into HYPSM for undergrad is accomplished. They may/will game the system for their next goal if that also relies on "subjective" measures without any validation or verification. This whole "holistic" approach is useless if the colleges don't even verify the important things. it indirectly encourages cheating, marketing & extrapolation.

I would not planning on gaming your way through hypsm. Cheaters get caught...at least some do at those places because it happened in a class I know about for a fact and there were consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some...don't really think there are that many that successfully game the system if you don't have that hook to get in, you better bring it to have a shot at admittance.

And it's not exactly a picnic when you get there so what is the point if you are unprepared to take advantage if you get that acceptance?

PP you are missing a point. Who said they are unprepared? They are all academically strong kids, but they lie about their ECs to standout. Because colleges want that - STANDOUT - but NO VALIDATION OR VERIFICATION.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some...don't really think there are that many that successfully game the system if you don't have that hook to get in, you better bring it to have a shot at admittance.

And it's not exactly a picnic when you get there so what is the point if you are unprepared to take advantage if you get that acceptance?

PP you are missing a point. Who said they are unprepared? They are all academically strong kids, but they lie about their ECs to standout. Because colleges want that - STANDOUT - but NO VALIDATION OR VERIFICATION.

Again...lying and cheating have a way of catching up to a student at a place like hypsm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some...don't really think there are that many that successfully game the system if you don't have that hook to get in, you better bring it to have a shot at admittance.

And it's not exactly a picnic when you get there so what is the point if you are unprepared to take advantage if you get that acceptance?

I would agree that the majority of students are not gamers. But the kids that game the system are not unprepared, these are kids that have the stats but are not geniuses or intellectually curious. I attended an Ivy and yes, some majors are hard, but getting in is the hardest part for most students. Did you attend an Ivy? Maybe it was different for you and your peers. However, I think that most people looking in from the outside idealize what it is like to attend such institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some...don't really think there are that many that successfully game the system if you don't have that hook to get in, you better bring it to have a shot at admittance.

And it's not exactly a picnic when you get there so what is the point if you are unprepared to take advantage if you get that acceptance?

I would agree that the majority of students are not gamers. But the kids that game the system are not unprepared, these are kids that have the stats but are not geniuses or intellectually curious. I attended an Ivy and yes, some majors are hard, but getting in is the hardest part for most students. Did you attend an Ivy? Maybe it was different for you and your peers. However, I think that most people looking in from the outside idealize what it is like to attend such institutions.

I suppose it depends what kind of grades a student wants to achieve. Contrary to what is claimed on here...top grades are hard fought and not just distributed like gum balls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some...don't really think there are that many that successfully game the system if you don't have that hook to get in, you better bring it to have a shot at admittance.

And it's not exactly a picnic when you get there so what is the point if you are unprepared to take advantage if you get that acceptance?

PP you are missing a point. Who said they are unprepared? They are all academically strong kids, but they lie about their ECs to standout. Because colleges want that - STANDOUT - but NO VALIDATION OR VERIFICATION.

Again...lying and cheating have a way of catching up to a student at a place like hypsm.

Sadly, that is not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some...don't really think there are that many that successfully game the system if you don't have that hook to get in, you better bring it to have a shot at admittance.

And it's not exactly a picnic when you get there so what is the point if you are unprepared to take advantage if you get that acceptance?

PP you are missing a point. Who said they are unprepared? They are all academically strong kids, but they lie about their ECs to standout. Because colleges want that - STANDOUT - but NO VALIDATION OR VERIFICATION.

Again...lying and cheating have a way of catching up to a student at a place like hypsm.

Sadly, that is not true.

It is true for some. There are always teflon kids at those places but mere mortals may have consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These universities were publicly advertising that they wanted 'first generation' students. Hopkins president came out and said he didn't want legacy. My husband was a first generation JHU student so it's crazy that our kid will be dinged because his dad went there.

Princeton advertised that 68% of their student body is mixed race. That makes me very leery of what people are claiming on their applications. Hello Pocahontas Warren wannabes.

That's impossible--less than 10% of the US population under 18 years old is biracial/mixed race. I think you mean people of color or non-white. I found this that supports your 68% number: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9451013/Princeton-selecting-fewer-white-students-year.html

Princeton announced its 2025 class on Thursday; 68% are non-white (black, Asian, Hispanic and other races)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9451013/Princeton-selecting-fewer-white-students-year.html

So only 32% of the class is white?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These universities were publicly advertising that they wanted 'first generation' students. Hopkins president came out and said he didn't want legacy. My husband was a first generation JHU student so it's crazy that our kid will be dinged because his dad went there.

Princeton advertised that 68% of their student body is mixed race. That makes me very leery of what people are claiming on their applications. Hello Pocahontas Warren wannabes.

That's impossible--less than 10% of the US population under 18 years old is biracial/mixed race. I think you mean people of color or non-white. I found this that supports your 68% number: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9451013/Princeton-selecting-fewer-white-students-year.html

Princeton announced its 2025 class on Thursday; 68% are non-white (black, Asian, Hispanic and other races)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9451013/Princeton-selecting-fewer-white-students-year.html

So only 32% of the class is white?

No, 32% of accepted 2025 students to Princeton were white. According to the CDS for that class (enrolled students), 37.5% are white, 8% are black, 11% are Hispanic, 21% are Asian and the remaining are internationa/Two or more races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The very top kids at my child's high school (valedictorian, salutatorian and a couple others) got into Ivy-level colleges. The kids (like my DD), who would have had a good shot at some of these schools even 5 years ago, didn't have a chance, and every one is going to a second-tier college or in-state school because of cost.

The top-ranked schools attract a lot of hyper-qualified applicants, so they can pick whomever they want from their applicant pool. These days you need a hook, a 4.0 and at least 1550 on your SAT to even be considered at the top schools.

Kids who aren't interested in working that hard in high school should be realistic about college admissions, even if they are extremely bright. Sure, they'd do fine at Harvard and Yale, but without stats, they don't have the admissions ticket, unless they are a top athlete or have some other unique skill or talent.

I know two superb athletes who went to Princeton and Harvard who are not at the top of their classes academically. But their athletic skill got them admitted.

My kid is not even a top athlete, but is a decent athlete. He’s a 4.0 and a wicked math student. I was almost blown the F away when a choach reached out to him from Harvard. Bring a decent athlete and a great student goes a looooong way. And yes my child is a public school kid. He’s done some showcase tournaments this summer and did one in particular for high achieving student athletes. Most of these showcases and full of prep school kids, so I feel like maybe the public school kids don’t even try.

I strongly suggest if someone had a decent student athlete who is an excellent student to do the showcase circuit and target the showcases that have a minimum GPA requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These universities were publicly advertising that they wanted 'first generation' students. Hopkins president came out and said he didn't want legacy. My husband was a first generation JHU student so it's crazy that our kid will be dinged because his dad went there.

Princeton advertised that 68% of their student body is mixed race. That makes me very leery of what people are claiming on their applications. Hello Pocahontas Warren wannabes.

That's impossible--less than 10% of the US population under 18 years old is biracial/mixed race. I think you mean people of color or non-white. I found this that supports your 68% number: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9451013/Princeton-selecting-fewer-white-students-year.html

Princeton announced its 2025 class on Thursday; 68% are non-white (black, Asian, Hispanic and other races)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9451013/Princeton-selecting-fewer-white-students-year.html

So only 32% of the class is white?

Yes. The pp wants to fight about that because it includes Asians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These universities were publicly advertising that they wanted 'first generation' students. Hopkins president came out and said he didn't want legacy. My husband was a first generation JHU student so it's crazy that our kid will be dinged because his dad went there.

Princeton advertised that 68% of their student body is mixed race. That makes me very leery of what people are claiming on their applications. Hello Pocahontas Warren wannabes.

That's impossible--less than 10% of the US population under 18 years old is biracial/mixed race. I think you mean people of color or non-white. I found this that supports your 68% number: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9451013/Princeton-selecting-fewer-white-students-year.html

Princeton announced its 2025 class on Thursday; 68% are non-white (black, Asian, Hispanic and other races)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9451013/Princeton-selecting-fewer-white-students-year.html

So only 32% of the class is white?

No, 32% of accepted 2025 students to Princeton were white. According to the CDS for that class (enrolled students), 37.5% are white, 8% are black, 11% are Hispanic, 21% are Asian and the remaining are internationa/Two or more races.

Right. Less than 1/3 of the class is white. Period.