Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

https://www.questbridge.org/high-school-students/national-college-match/who-should-apply

is a great program for high-achieving students from families whose HHI is less than $65K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, ignore the trollish/negative posts. One bit of information that is particularly eye-opening for me with a DC looking to be recruited -- Athletes need at or near a 4.0 UNWEIGHTED to achieve "non-committee-reviewed" spots? We are always telling our DC how important grades are, as well as how important it is to take a rigorous schedule of honors and AP classes, but do all the recruited athletes at elite schools really have straight As in rigorous schedules? Thanks for your time!

Not OP, but this is absolutely not true. Elite colleges, even Ivies, will recruit athletes and give them a pass on grades or SATs (to a degree). However, you have to be a very high level athlete - think Olympic level or you can lead your team to a national title.

false - there is no ivy league male soccer player that is remotely good enough to play in europe at an elite level or even carry a side to a ncaa national team title. But there are plenty of ivy league male players who skate in on the lower end of the Academic Index.

You provided one example, and soccer is not the only sport colleges care about.

My husband played high level hockey, and he knew plenty of kids that shouldn't have gotten admitted to Ivies.

Harvard's team is number 2 right now. Yale won a national title a few years back. If you seriously think that those players were admitted using the same standards, then you are just a complete moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every source I can find says that scores on the new SAT are higher than the old SAT--except OP. One of the issues/concerns with the new SAT was that resulted in score inflations.

Care to post any of those sources?

You can do a quick search. This is what major news outlets (ala Wash Post) were reporting after the first exam.

Until you provide proof, you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. White privileged folks prevail as usual w/ alumni connections and donations.

Of course, if you happen to be white and have parents who never graduated from high school and Dad makes less than $15 per hour with a SAHM, no special interest group cares about you and you are totally screwed....

Totally wrong -- you're a highly coveted "first-gen" student who will get a free ride if you have the credentials to get into HYPS. Doesn't mean it'll be easy -- if you fall in this category, you aren't likely to have had the educational opportunities and developed some of the academic skills that UMC kids have, and you may experience a real cultural schock, struggle financially (or cause your family to), and may not have the support you need at home. But college admissions officers do care about you and you are not totally screwed.

Actually the PP was correct. The majority of poor high performing students are white and the vast majority don't go to top schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/education/scholarly-poor-often-overlook-better-colleges.html?hp

"Only 34 percent of high-achieving high school seniors in the bottom fourth of income distribution attended any one of the country’s 238 most selective colleges"

And

"Among high-achieving, low-income students, 6 percent were black, 8 percent Latino, 15 percent Asian-American and 69 percent white, the study found"

Doesn't make the PP right -- PP's point was that poor whites were ignored/screwed by elite colleges. They are not -- there's an active campaign by top schools to find/attract these kids. But if you don't apply, you can't be admitted. And if you are admitted but your family needs you to work PT and live at home, you may not be able to go. As I said, it's not easy, but the opportunities are there. And we do kids in this situation a real disservice to say no one cares about your education rather than pointing out these opportunities to them.

Well, if anyone cared about their education they would probably make the effort to tell them. If these kids were majority black or Hispanic there would be a lot more effort made to pair them with the schools where they belong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every source I can find says that scores on the new SAT are higher than the old SAT--except OP. One of the issues/concerns with the new SAT was that resulted in score inflations.

Care to post any of those sources?

You can do a quick search. This is what major news outlets (ala Wash Post) were reporting after the first exam.

Until you provide proof, you are wrong.

Google -- it's your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, ignore the trollish/negative posts. One bit of information that is particularly eye-opening for me with a DC looking to be recruited -- Athletes need at or near a 4.0 UNWEIGHTED to achieve "non-committee-reviewed" spots? We are always telling our DC how important grades are, as well as how important it is to take a rigorous schedule of honors and AP classes, but do all the recruited athletes at elite schools really have straight As in rigorous schedules? Thanks for your time!

Not OP, but this is absolutely not true. Elite colleges, even Ivies, will recruit athletes and give them a pass on grades or SATs (to a degree). However, you have to be a very high level athlete - think Olympic level or you can lead your team to a national title.

false - there is no ivy league male soccer player that is remotely good enough to play in europe at an elite level or even carry a side to a ncaa national team title. But there are plenty of ivy league male players who skate in on the lower end of the Academic Index.

You provided one example, and soccer is not the only sport colleges care about.

My husband played high level hockey, and he knew plenty of kids that shouldn't have gotten admitted to Ivies.

Harvard's team is number 2 right now. Yale won a national title a few years back. If you seriously think that those players were admitted using the same standards, then you are just a complete moron.

pp you are quoting.

you must've misunderstood me. it seems you are agreeing with me that you don't need to be olympic level/ultra elite as an athlete to make use of the much lower academic standards.

i don't know what it is like for hockey but for male soccer, ivy soccer is painfully bad and atrocious to watch. the fact that it is used as a strong hook is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. White privileged folks prevail as usual w/ alumni connections and donations.

Of course, if you happen to be white and have parents who never graduated from high school and Dad makes less than $15 per hour with a SAHM, no special interest group cares about you and you are totally screwed....

Totally wrong -- you're a highly coveted "first-gen" student who will get a free ride if you have the credentials to get into HYPS. Doesn't mean it'll be easy -- if you fall in this category, you aren't likely to have had the educational opportunities and developed some of the academic skills that UMC kids have, and you may experience a real cultural schock, struggle financially (or cause your family to), and may not have the support you need at home. But college admissions officers do care about you and you are not totally screwed.

Actually the PP was correct. The majority of poor high performing students are white and the vast majority don't go to top schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/education/scholarly-poor-often-overlook-better-colleges.html?hp

"Only 34 percent of high-achieving high school seniors in the bottom fourth of income distribution attended any one of the country’s 238 most selective colleges"

And

"Among high-achieving, low-income students, 6 percent were black, 8 percent Latino, 15 percent Asian-American and 69 percent white, the study found"

Doesn't make the PP right -- PP's point was that poor whites were ignored/screwed by elite colleges. They are not -- there's an active campaign by top schools to find/attract these kids. But if you don't apply, you can't be admitted. And if you are admitted but your family needs you to work PT and live at home, you may not be able to go. As I said, it's not easy, but the opportunities are there. And we do kids in this situation a real disservice to say no one cares about your education rather than pointing out these opportunities to them.

Well, if anyone cared about their education they would probably make the effort to tell them. If these kids were majority black or Hispanic there would be a lot more effort made to pair them with the schools where they belong.

Given your use of "them," I'm guessing you're not the parent of a high achieving low income white kid. Just somebody looking for an anonymous forum where s/he can spout racist BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. White privileged folks prevail as usual w/ alumni connections and donations.

Of course, if you happen to be white and have parents who never graduated from high school and Dad makes less than $15 per hour with a SAHM, no special interest group cares about you and you are totally screwed....

Totally wrong -- you're a highly coveted "first-gen" student who will get a free ride if you have the credentials to get into HYPS. Doesn't mean it'll be easy -- if you fall in this category, you aren't likely to have had the educational opportunities and developed some of the academic skills that UMC kids have, and you may experience a real cultural schock, struggle financially (or cause your family to), and may not have the support you need at home. But college admissions officers do care about you and you are not totally screwed.

Actually the PP was correct. The majority of poor high performing students are white and the vast majority don't go to top schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/education/scholarly-poor-often-overlook-better-colleges.html?hp

"Only 34 percent of high-achieving high school seniors in the bottom fourth of income distribution attended any one of the country’s 238 most selective colleges"

And

"Among high-achieving, low-income students, 6 percent were black, 8 percent Latino, 15 percent Asian-American and 69 percent white, the study found"

Doesn't make the PP right -- PP's point was that poor whites were ignored/screwed by elite colleges. They are not -- there's an active campaign by top schools to find/attract these kids. But if you don't apply, you can't be admitted. And if you are admitted but your family needs you to work PT and live at home, you may not be able to go. As I said, it's not easy, but the opportunities are there. And we do kids in this situation a real disservice to say no one cares about your education rather than pointing out these opportunities to them.

Well, if anyone cared about their education they would probably make the effort to tell them. If these kids were majority black or Hispanic there would be a lot more effort made to pair them with the schools where they belong.

Given your use of "them," I'm guessing you're not the parent of a high achieving low income white kid. Just somebody looking for an anonymous forum where s/he can spout racist BS.

NP--state the reality that it is easier for urm's t get into selective schools that Asians and Caucasians isn't racist. It is reality. People can disagree with whether this practice is good or bad, but reality is reality and that isn't racist.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for your help, OP. How are 9th grade grades weighed? Any forgiveness in the process for a student who makes mistakes in 9th grade, then matures into a great student? I'm a bit worried that the system seems to be set up to reward pre-mature frontal lobe development. I hope I'm wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for your help, OP. How are 9th grade grades weighed? Any forgiveness in the process for a student who makes mistakes in 9th grade, then matures into a great student? I'm a bit worried that the system seems to be set up to reward pre-mature frontal lobe development. I hope I'm wrong.

Not OP, but YES! there is a degree of 'forgiveness' for a bad Freshman year if the other years are good and test scores solid. My son had a terrible 9th grade and every school we visited said they put far more weight on the trend and would look at a transcript like his and calculate the GPA with and without freshman grades.
Just try to have a reason (we moved cross country in middle of 9th because DH lost his job) and make sure the grades are good moving forward.
He's attending a SLAC with a less than 15% admit rate and he pulled a 1.8 GPA freshman year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every source I can find says that scores on the new SAT are higher than the old SAT--except OP. One of the issues/concerns with the new SAT was that resulted in score inflations.

Care to post any of those sources?

You can do a quick search. This is what major news outlets (ala Wash Post) were reporting after the first exam.

Until you provide proof, you are wrong.

Google -- it's your friend.

You don't have a source. Naming search engines won't change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for your help, OP. How are 9th grade grades weighed? Any forgiveness in the process for a student who makes mistakes in 9th grade, then matures into a great student? I'm a bit worried that the system seems to be set up to reward pre-mature frontal lobe development. I hope I'm wrong.

Not OP, but YES! there is a degree of 'forgiveness' for a bad Freshman year if the other years are good and test scores solid. My son had a terrible 9th grade and every school we visited said they put far more weight on the trend and would look at a transcript like his and calculate the GPA with and without freshman grades.
Just try to have a reason (we moved cross country in middle of 9th because DH lost his job) and make sure the grades are good moving forward.
He's attending a SLAC with a less than 15% admit rate and he pulled a 1.8 GPA freshman year.

What a relief. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. White privileged folks prevail as usual w/ alumni connections and donations.

Of course, if you happen to be white and have parents who never graduated from high school and Dad makes less than $15 per hour with a SAHM, no special interest group cares about you and you are totally screwed....

Totally wrong -- you're a highly coveted "first-gen" student who will get a free ride if you have the credentials to get into HYPS. Doesn't mean it'll be easy -- if you fall in this category, you aren't likely to have had the educational opportunities and developed some of the academic skills that UMC kids have, and you may experience a real cultural schock, struggle financially (or cause your family to), and may not have the support you need at home. But college admissions officers do care about you and you are not totally screwed.

Actually the PP was correct. The majority of poor high performing students are white and the vast majority don't go to top schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/education/scholarly-poor-often-overlook-better-colleges.html?hp

"Only 34 percent of high-achieving high school seniors in the bottom fourth of income distribution attended any one of the country’s 238 most selective colleges"

And

"Among high-achieving, low-income students, 6 percent were black, 8 percent Latino, 15 percent Asian-American and 69 percent white, the study found"

Doesn't make the PP right -- PP's point was that poor whites were ignored/screwed by elite colleges. They are not -- there's an active campaign by top schools to find/attract these kids. But if you don't apply, you can't be admitted. And if you are admitted but your family needs you to work PT and live at home, you may not be able to go. As I said, it's not easy, but the opportunities are there. And we do kids in this situation a real disservice to say no one cares about your education rather than pointing out these opportunities to them.

Well, if anyone cared about their education they would probably make the effort to tell them. If these kids were majority black or Hispanic there would be a lot more effort made to pair them with the schools where they belong.

Given your use of "them," I'm guessing you're not the parent of a high achieving low income white kid. Just somebody looking for an anonymous forum where s/he can spout racist BS.

NP--state the reality that it is easier for urm's t get into selective schools that Asians and Caucasians isn't racist. It is reality. People can disagree with whether this practice is good or bad, but reality is reality and that isn't racist.

Except that wasn't the claim. The claim was low-income high-achieving white students are screwed and no one cares about them. That's not true. There are outreach programs and the top privates offer enough FA to make cost of attendance minimal. It's racist (as well as factually inaccurate) to turn a discussion of that issue into "URMs get all the breaks in college admissions."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every source I can find says that scores on the new SAT are higher than the old SAT--except OP. One of the issues/concerns with the new SAT was that resulted in score inflations.

Care to post any of those sources?

You can do a quick search. This is what major news outlets (ala Wash Post) were reporting after the first exam.

Until you provide proof, you are wrong.

Google -- it's your friend.

You don't have a source. Naming search engines won't change that.

oh good grief, do the search or shut up. The poster named a source. You just have to google that source. Lazy ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. White privileged folks prevail as usual w/ alumni connections and donations.

Of course, if you happen to be white and have parents who never graduated from high school and Dad makes less than $15 per hour with a SAHM, no special interest group cares about you and you are totally screwed....

Totally wrong -- you're a highly coveted "first-gen" student who will get a free ride if you have the credentials to get into HYPS. Doesn't mean it'll be easy -- if you fall in this category, you aren't likely to have had the educational opportunities and developed some of the academic skills that UMC kids have, and you may experience a real cultural schock, struggle financially (or cause your family to), and may not have the support you need at home. But college admissions officers do care about you and you are not totally screwed.

Actually the PP was correct. The majority of poor high performing students are white and the vast majority don't go to top schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/education/scholarly-poor-often-overlook-better-colleges.html?hp

"Only 34 percent of high-achieving high school seniors in the bottom fourth of income distribution attended any one of the country’s 238 most selective colleges"

And

"Among high-achieving, low-income students, 6 percent were black, 8 percent Latino, 15 percent Asian-American and 69 percent white, the study found"

Doesn't make the PP right -- PP's point was that poor whites were ignored/screwed by elite colleges. They are not -- there's an active campaign by top schools to find/attract these kids. But if you don't apply, you can't be admitted. And if you are admitted but your family needs you to work PT and live at home, you may not be able to go. As I said, it's not easy, but the opportunities are there. And we do kids in this situation a real disservice to say no one cares about your education rather than pointing out these opportunities to them.

Well, if anyone cared about their education they would probably make the effort to tell them. If these kids were majority black or Hispanic there would be a lot more effort made to pair them with the schools where they belong.

Given your use of "them," I'm guessing you're not the parent of a high achieving low income white kid. Just somebody looking for an anonymous forum where s/he can spout racist BS.

NP--state the reality that it is easier for urm's t get into selective schools that Asians and Caucasians isn't racist. It is reality. People can disagree with whether this practice is good or bad, but reality is reality and that isn't racist.

Except that wasn't the claim. The claim was low-income high-achieving white students are screwed and no one cares about them. That's not true. There are outreach programs and the top privates offer enough FA to make cost of attendance minimal. It's racist (as well as factually inaccurate) to turn a discussion of that issue into "URMs get all the breaks in college admissions."

except urm's will get in with lower stats than other races low income or not...