Princeton class of 2027

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

where are these 1310 kids? They certainly arent at Princeton in any meaningful numbers. Stop the hyperbole

Basketball + football

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

where are these 1310 kids? They certainly arent at Princeton in any meaningful numbers. Stop the hyperbole

Basketball + football

We know from CDS that 60% of kids submitted SAT scores and the bottom 25% got 1510. So all we really know for sure is that 45% of the class got 1510 or higher. We don't know where the other 55% landed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. This is among the most absurd DCUM threads I have read.
1. They are taking tons of elite kids today. About half the class of dalton in 2023 went to an Ivy League or a top ten (Chicago/Stanford). Maybe they just don’t find the DMV kids as impressive.
2. The prepped since birth kids weren’t the most impressive students at my HYP and they sure didn’t work the hardest.
3. I too am sorry that it’ll be way harder for my kid to get in then it was for me. But not a reason to knock who they are taking

I say this all the time - DMV kids aren't overly impressive. We dont have a top 10 private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

my kids went to stuy and the pell grant kids had SAT scores in the top 25% of HYPSM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

Their applicant pool differs from MIT how exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

Their applicant pool differs from MIT how exactly?

It's the same applicant pool. MIT and Caltech are getting kids that are rolling with 1600 or 36. And it doesn't matter whether they choose to submit. It's pretty clear from the rest of their applications that these are smart kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

Their applicant pool differs from MIT how exactly?

It's the same applicant pool. MIT and Caltech are getting kids that are rolling with 1600 or 36. And it doesn't matter whether they choose to submit. It's pretty clear from the rest of their applications that these are smart kids

The applicants may look similar, but i know several kids who applied to MIT that had zero interest in CalTech (and I assume vice versa). I would argue more MIT kids are applying to Ivy and Stanford in addition to MIT vs. CalTech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

where are these 1310 kids? They certainly arent at Princeton in any meaningful numbers. Stop the hyperbole

Basketball + football

LOL

Princeton does not recruit world class athletes. If they were world class they would not be at Princeton.

Can't be easy finding world class students who are also good at sports. As it is Princeton's roster is full of dudes from England, Australia, Canada, China.

And here you are acting like they are recruiting illiterate children from Trenton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

where are these 1310 kids? They certainly arent at Princeton in any meaningful numbers. Stop the hyperbole

Basketball + football

LOL

Princeton does not recruit world class athletes. If they were world class they would not be at Princeton.

Can't be easy finding world class students who are also good at sports. As it is Princeton's roster is full of dudes from England, Australia, Canada, China.

And here you are acting like they are recruiting illiterate children from Trenton

Doesn’t Princeton get some Asian ethnicity Olympians usually?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

Their applicant pool differs from MIT how exactly?

MIT recruits athletes FYI. Caltech does not.


It's the same applicant pool. MIT and Caltech are getting kids that are rolling with 1600 or 36. And it doesn't matter whether they choose to submit. It's pretty clear from the rest of their applications that these are smart kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

where are these 1310 kids? They certainly arent at Princeton in any meaningful numbers. Stop the hyperbole

Basketball + football

LOL

Princeton does not recruit world class athletes. If they were world class they would not be at Princeton.

Can't be easy finding world class students who are also good at sports. As it is Princeton's roster is full of dudes from England, Australia, Canada, China.

And here you are acting like they are recruiting illiterate children from Trenton

Well, they do recruit world class athletes but you probably consider them niche sports.

I think one of the top fencers in the country (maybe the world) is a freshman at Princeton (GDS grad I believe.

Ivy schools usually are in the Top 20 in lacrosse. I don’t know if there are any world competitions in lacrosse.

Ivy schools are tops for crew, squash, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guessing their score is higher than your kids was before the thousands of dollars of tutoring to ‘learn the tricks’

+1000

Or guessing that maybe SAT score is not a good indicator (or certainly not the best/only) of intelligence/success at college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

where are these 1310 kids? They certainly arent at Princeton in any meaningful numbers. Stop the hyperbole

Basketball + football

We know from CDS that 60% of kids submitted SAT scores and the bottom 25% got 1510. So all we really know for sure is that 45% of the class got 1510 or higher. We don't know where the other 55% landed.

cds shows less than 5% scored a 1400. And if im betting on where the legacies are, you know im betting the under

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

From the interview, from the essays, from the recommendations.....the list is long. Fact is the kids these top schools select are not flunking out, they are succeeding and going on to do good things. So who are you to say they are not just as smart?

Once people get over the notion that top grade and top SAT scores "entitle them to a T25 education", they will be freer to actually succeed at life. Nobody is entitled to this. H/Y/P/M/S are entitled to select whomever they want to enroll for their freshman class---they are not required to select everyone with a 4.0/1600 (and they often do not). If they see the value of having a 3.8/no score submitted or a 3.8/1500 as a member of their class, they are allowed to accept them. There is more to a person than just grades and test scores---the 3.8/1500 may have stellar recommendations, truly overcome an obstacle in life, great essays that are genuine, amazing recommendations that are genuine (much easier to write a truly genuine recommendation when only 25% of your students go to college and only a few of them are stellar---you have likely gotten to know those kids over their 4 years and really worked to nurture and encourage that start student), etc.
And if your issue is to complain that "it's unfair that my kid never had those obstacles" then you need to look deep and figure out your issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

Their applicant pool differs from MIT how exactly?

It's the same applicant pool. MIT and Caltech are getting kids that are rolling with 1600 or 36. And it doesn't matter whether they choose to submit. It's pretty clear from the rest of their applications that these are smart kids

So why does MIT need a SAT score? Is their admissions department incompetent?