Reflections from 2025 HYPSM admit(s)

[Anonymous]

Or you can be a really good athlete or play an instrument. I’m only familiar with athletic recruiting which made the admissions process longer but much more transparent (pre reads give you an idea of where to apply ED). If a coach wants an athlete and their application is in range, they have a much better chance of getting in.

My younger son is not a natural athlete like his brother but has talent playing piano. He is not even 9 yet but has always wanted to play more obscure instruments in addition to piano.
That may be his hook. At one top50 LAC tour, admissions kept asking what instruments kids played hoping to fill gaps in their marching band.
I read (but can’t back it up) that a musician’s chances of getting a college scholarship are 70% higher than an athlete’s. It probably helps admission too.

Sports worked for my older son who was a solid student (9 AP’s and 3.9 unweighted GPA). Unlikely he would have gotten into the LAC he’s attending if not a recruited athlete.
No money by the way.

[Anonymous]

OP here:

On my kid - she is well-adjusted, social, and loved by her teachers and now professors. We are hands off in college and she is thriving. Did very well in the first semester. Calls home frequently. Taking very interesting classes. Joined clubs, figuring out career path. Seems to have great friends, and they will be traveling together during spring break. She is still in contact with her high school friends.

On being a one-hit wonder - we have another, older kid at a HYPSM. His results were definitely less striking than hers, but we had yet to refine the barb approach. Of course, my sample size is n=2. But I think with the variability and low chance, P(strategy working | 2 success stories) is still quite high. Sorry for the probability jargon.

On those calling me deplorable - this is just the current state of the game. I don't fault any of us for playing it. If anything, you should be blaming the admissions offices for encouraging actions like this. The sooner you catch on, the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This probably does get a kid into HPYSM, but it’s highly contrived, and thus, sad. It’s like the parent is applying to college.

We knew a case where a parent helped a kid do this and it was successful, but everyone who knew the kid and family knew this was the game plan since elementary school. The dad managed the kid’s life from 0-18 and probably is still at it. In the end, I’m not sure where this really gets a kid. I guess we’ll find out in 10-15 years.

I wonder too. I was not anything close to this but I was more involved in my high school kids' lives than I probably should have been. Certainly more than my own parents were in mine. If I had to do it over I would have tried to draw back entirely in about 10th grade. My kids are now in mid college and I can totally see a sort of "learned helplessness" come out from time-to-time. They're capable of doing very high level academic work and yet strangely sometimes not capable of making their own life plans or decisions. Some of this is age appropriate, some is typical of this generation but I sometimes think I could have held them at more of a distance and it would have served them well. Helicoptering isn't good in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or you can be a really good athlete or play an instrument. I’m only familiar with athletic recruiting which made the admissions process longer but much more transparent (pre reads give you an idea of where to apply ED). If a coach wants an athlete and their application is in range, they have a much better chance of getting in.

My younger son is not a natural athlete like his brother but has talent playing piano. He is not even 9 yet but has always wanted to play more obscure instruments in addition to piano.
That may be his hook. At one top50 LAC tour, admissions kept asking what instruments kids played hoping to fill gaps in their marching band.
I read (but can’t back it up) that a musician’s chances of getting a college scholarship are 70% higher than an athlete’s. It probably helps admission too.

Sports worked for my older son who was a solid student (9 AP’s and 3.9 unweighted GPA). Unlikely he would have gotten into the LAC he’s attending if not a recruited athlete.
No money by the way.

My daughter said she met students at her school who were directly recruited by the music departments. Have heard that Yale and Princeton are quite notorious for this as well, not sure about others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here:

On my kid - she is well-adjusted, social, and loved by her teachers and now professors. We are hands off in college and she is thriving. Did very well in the first semester. Calls home frequently. Taking very interesting classes. Joined clubs, figuring out career path. Seems to have great friends, and they will be traveling together during spring break. She is still in contact with her high school friends.

On being a one-hit wonder - we have another, older kid at a HYPSM. His results were definitely less striking than hers, but we had yet to refine the barb approach. Of course, my sample size is n=2. But I think with the variability and low chance, P(strategy working | 2 success stories) is still quite high. Sorry for the probability jargon.

On those calling me deplorable - this is just the current state of the game. I don't fault any of us for playing it. If anything, you should be blaming the admissions offices for encouraging actions like this. The sooner you catch on, the better.

And all of you happily lived every after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here:

On my kid - she is well-adjusted, social, and loved by her teachers and now professors. We are hands off in college and she is thriving. Did very well in the first semester. Calls home frequently. Taking very interesting classes. Joined clubs, figuring out career path. Seems to have great friends, and they will be traveling together during spring break. She is still in contact with her high school friends.

On being a one-hit wonder - we have another, older kid at a HYPSM. His results were definitely less striking than hers, but we had yet to refine the barb approach. Of course, my sample size is n=2. But I think with the variability and low chance, P(strategy working | 2 success stories) is still quite high. Sorry for the probability jargon.

On those calling me deplorable - this is just the current state of the game. I don't fault any of us for playing it. If anything, you should be blaming the admissions offices for encouraging actions like this. The sooner you catch on, the better.

And all of you happily lived every after.

Well the tuition bill is quite high so maybe after they graduate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or you can be a really good athlete or play an instrument. I’m only familiar with athletic recruiting which made the admissions process longer but much more transparent (pre reads give you an idea of where to apply ED). If a coach wants an athlete and their application is in range, they have a much better chance of getting in.

My younger son is not a natural athlete like his brother but has talent playing piano. He is not even 9 yet but has always wanted to play more obscure instruments in addition to piano.
That may be his hook. At one top50 LAC tour, admissions kept asking what instruments kids played hoping to fill gaps in their marching band.
I read (but can’t back it up) that a musician’s chances of getting a college scholarship are 70% higher than an athlete’s. It probably helps admission too.

Sports worked for my older son who was a solid student (9 AP’s and 3.9 unweighted GPA). Unlikely he would have gotten into the LAC he’s attending if not a recruited athlete.
No money by the way.

My daughter said she met students at her school who were directly recruited by the music departments. Have heard that Yale and Princeton are quite notorious for this as well, not sure about others.

I know a recruited Princeton musician. High school grades were average at best. Instrument skill was phenomenal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here:

On my kid - she is well-adjusted, social, and loved by her teachers and now professors. We are hands off in college and she is thriving. Did very well in the first semester. Calls home frequently. Taking very interesting classes. Joined clubs, figuring out career path. Seems to have great friends, and they will be traveling together during spring break. She is still in contact with her high school friends.

On being a one-hit wonder - we have another, older kid at a HYPSM. His results were definitely less striking than hers, but we had yet to refine the barb approach. Of course, my sample size is n=2. But I think with the variability and low chance, P(strategy working | 2 success stories) is still quite high. Sorry for the probability jargon.

On those calling me deplorable - this is just the current state of the game. I don't fault any of us for playing it. If anything, you should be blaming the admissions offices for encouraging actions like this. The sooner you catch on, the better.

And all of you happily lived every after.

Is it just me or do sentiments like these seem really common? That it's impossible for a kid can be normal, social, even likeable while still attending a top school? That it's inconceivable normal kids would ever try and strategize to get into schools?

It seems to me that the sarcasm in this reply is a really sorry attempt to pathologize success. People seem to find it deeply unsettling when a student is both strategic and socially well-adjusted because it removes their favorite excuse: that elite admissions is a trade-off between prestige and personhood. But it's really not.

Your quip is small, lol. But it's something that I see really often in these forums. When you insist that these kids are miserable or burnt out or deplorable human beings, you as an onlooker protect your own ego. It's much easier to dismiss a HYPSM student as a product of strategy than to admit they might just be a high-functioning individual who understood the rules of the game. I think this reaction is a sign of intellectual laziness. You want to believe in a 'meritocracy of the accidental', where kids get into Harvard just by being authentic (whatever that means). You think strategy is a form of cheating because it just exposes the fact that effort without direction is often wasted energy

It's entirely possible to be competitive and happy all at once, and I don't really think there's a point in moralizing the positions of individual agents here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They track gpa and major after enrollment.

They do, but 1) grade inflation doesn’t make this as informative at some schools (I’m looking at, you, Harvard), and 2) this feedback isn’t as direct and corrective as reading the file and then experiencing the individual kid in class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree. My DD's barb was on a niche aspect of Chinese Opera music, and making it more accessible to teens in her community. She got into Yale REA this year!

PP again, I should also disclose that she is a legacy at Yale, but I do believe (as does she) that it was her barb that got her in, not her legacy status!

Hard to say, as maybe legacy status is what tipped her into admit over other similar candidates or changed what would've been a defer to an admit.

Nah. Let's not interfere with PP's firm believe that their daughter was magically talented, rather than being born on 3rd base and thinking she hit a triple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or you can be a really good athlete or play an instrument. I’m only familiar with athletic recruiting which made the admissions process longer but much more transparent (pre reads give you an idea of where to apply ED). If a coach wants an athlete and their application is in range, they have a much better chance of getting in.

My younger son is not a natural athlete like his brother but has talent playing piano. He is not even 9 yet but has always wanted to play more obscure instruments in addition to piano.
That may be his hook. At one top50 LAC tour, admissions kept asking what instruments kids played hoping to fill gaps in their marching band.
I read (but can’t back it up) that a musician’s chances of getting a college scholarship are 70% higher than an athlete’s. It probably helps admission too.

Sports worked for my older son who was a solid student (9 AP’s and 3.9 unweighted GPA). Unlikely he would have gotten into the LAC he’s attending if not a recruited athlete.
No money by the way.

My daughter said she met students at her school who were directly recruited by the music departments. Have heard that Yale and Princeton are quite notorious for this as well, not sure about others.

I know a recruited Princeton musician. High school grades were average at best. Instrument skill was phenomenal.

What major? Music?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My unhooked kid is at an Ivy and this just sounds so sick.

He just did the things he loved. By Fall of Senior year, you could see a pattern. His “narrative” (even hate that - blah) was easily pieced together.

We never “packaged” our kids or gunned for anything. They were naturally motivated/smart and always got As, top scores without us doing anything. Both were heavily into a sport they were not recruited for as well (did get re ruined for very low academic, tiny schools).

It might very well work, OP. But doing this and telling kids to just change once they are on campus just feels so creepy to me.

same w my two kids at HYP now. unhooked. no spike or barb developed during HS. but quantifiable results in school: elected to school positions, won major debate/MUN/mock trial events on state or national level. They both pieced together unique career interests out of what they had done/read/studied/did a summer thing related to so they would be memorable in a committee meeting: Northern Virginia kid interested in post-nuclear war/low light agriculture.

This is a perfect example of a barb. You're proving the OP's point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My unhooked kid is at an Ivy and this just sounds so sick.

He just did the things he loved. By Fall of Senior year, you could see a pattern. His “narrative” (even hate that - blah) was easily pieced together.

We never “packaged” our kids or gunned for anything. They were naturally motivated/smart and always got As, top scores without us doing anything. Both were heavily into a sport they were not recruited for as well (did get re ruined for very low academic, tiny schools).

It might very well work, OP. But doing this and telling kids to just change once they are on campus just feels so creepy to me.

same w my two kids at HYP now. unhooked. no spike or barb developed during HS. but quantifiable results in school: elected to school positions, won major debate/MUN/mock trial events on state or national level. They both pieced together unique career interests out of what they had done/read/studied/did a summer thing related to so they would be memorable in a committee meeting: Northern Virginia kid interested in post-nuclear war/low light agriculture. also won state MUN tournament, elected president of 250-member service club, and has a 36 on the ACT.

I want to say I know what that means, but I don't.
This is clearly bizzard/weird.
If HYP is into this kind of stuff but not kids who have more mainstream interests, there is a problem.

it's a real field of study. it's okay if you haven't heard of it, but that doesn't make it "weird"

Low-light agriculture is a critical area of study regarding both mitigating climate change and preparing for potential catastrophes like nuclear winter. While nuclear energy acts as a low-carbon, high-efficiency power source to support sustainable, high-tech farming and food security, a, nuclear war could trigger severe climate change, leading to global "nuclear winter" conditions, which would severely restrict light for agriculture.
World Nuclear Association


Low-Light Agriculture and Nuclear War (Nuclear Winter)
A large-scale nuclear war could produce massive amounts of soot, blocking up to 95-99% of sunlight, resulting in freezing temperatures, reduced precipitation, and minimal crop production for years.
The Pennsylvania State University


Reduced Yields: A nuclear winter could cause an 80% drop in annual corn yields.
Alternative Crops: Research indicates that in a low-light catastrophe, certain crops, such as sugar beets and spinach in temperate regions, would be more viable, while tropical forests might offer limited food production due to slightly better conditions.
Emergency Solutions: The most promising, though challenging, food solutions include mushrooms, seaweed, and the rapid scaling of greenhouses (using timber, plastic film) for some, though not enough, food.
Nutrient Challenges: The combination of low light and high ultraviolet (UV) radiation from a destroyed ozone layer would severely damage plant tissue.
The Pennsylvania State University


Nuclear Technology in Climate-Resilient Agriculture
Nuclear science, specifically through the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre, helps agriculture adapt to climate change:
Mutation Breeding: Techniques like irradiation (e.g., gamma rays or ion beams) are used to develop "climate-proof" crops, such as heat-tolerant rice in Bangladesh and drought-tolerant beans in Cuba.
Water and Soil Management: Isotopes are used to track water movement and improve efficiency in irrigation and fertilizer use, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50%.
Food Security: Food irradiation is used to extend the shelf life of produce and manage pests.
International Atomic Energy Agency


Nuclear Power for Sustainable Agriculture
Nuclear energy supports sustainable agriculture by providing reliable, low-carbon, baseload electricity.
World Nuclear Association


Clean Energy Transition: Nuclear energy is essential for meeting climate goals (e.g., Net Zero) by substituting for high-carbon fossil fuels.
Controlled Environment Agriculture: While vertical farming is energy-intensive, nuclear power could potentially supply the electricity needed for high-tech, artificial light, or "electro-agriculture" systems that can produce food in low-light environments.
Risks: However, climate change itself poses risks to nuclear infrastructure; in a high-emission scenario (RCP 8.5), up to 91% of nuclear reactors could face significant ambient temperature increases, affecting cooling capacities by 2040.
International Atomic Energy Agency

Okay, that's all good.
Are your kids at HYP majoring in low light ag or nuclear ag? Or are they doing econ right now? Be honest.

bio major. did do a low light mushroom study last year (junior year) so interest continues.

this is what colleges say they want. put SOMETHING in the career interest box. Put a career interest! Nobody is holding you to it.

again, my kids did 4 years of high school with no grand strategy, just doing what interests them. if you do that, you have a much better chance of filling out a career interest box with something organic. was Mock trial related? No. That's okay too.

What are their post-grad plans? A PhD in nuclear ag, or something else? If something else, when did they decide on that something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP - When parents do this, they tell their kids during their most formative years that

1) I don't think you're that special if people find out who you really are

2) I'm preemptively taking away your chance to experience what it's like to earn your own way because I already knew you wouldn't succeed

3) I care about flexing HYPMS to strangers more than I care about giving you an authentic education that develops your real interests and talents

I worry for OP's DD. When life gets hard (and it will for everyone, even if you "went to school in the Boston area"), the poor kid will always have a nagging voice in her head that her own mother doesn't have confidence in her.

1) A college acceptance is not social acceptance.

2) 99.9% of kids who "earn their own way" wouldn't "succeed" if you define "succeeding" as getting into HYPSM, so this is correct assuming you define success in that manner.

3) Isn't this what school is for? The only people who should be concerned with the "authenticity" of their kids education are crunchy homeschoolers - the rest have entrusted their children's education to their schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor and the idea of strategic position is so nauseating to me that I feel like writing a letter to our admissions office to let them know about what I read in this forum and others.

To be clear, I am not attacking the OP. She did what she felt she had to do to benefit her child. However, favoring students with unusual niche interests is clearly not the best way to find the most authentic students. Maybe this approach was more authentic 10 years ago before college admissions officers and parents pushed it en masse, but clearly this is no longer the way.

I always wonder how professors view their admissions offices and admission priorities.

Our child was told that activism was the essential key to admission to selective colleges. He followed a different path and somehow ended up at HYSPM.

He has met many classmates who were primarily involved in activism and impact-oriented activities. Sadly, he has seen those classmates struggle with the material to the confusion of their professors. I wonder if professors understand what the admissions offices are doing.

Professors who feel their undergrads at highly selective schools are under par should get together and write and sign an open letter demanding the admissions office increase the academic standards for admission. The publicity alone could provide an immense amount of pressure - remember how viral news of Harvard's "remedial math" (calculus with support) class went, which I have no doubt played a key role in Harvard reinstating tests.

Heck, if enough professors from different schools join in, they could even ask universities to ask the college board/ACT to raise the ceilings and specifically statistically validate the results within the top 1%.