The share of academically strong, unhooked students in the Top 20 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I asked AI to calculate the ratio to rule out the hooked admit:
* Athletic recruit
* Legacy or donation
* Academically compromised groups
* Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes

It leaves 25% of the student body. Does this sound about right? Do we have higher ratio in public universities than private?

I'd be very interested in seeing that prompt....please share. Or, is this just a bit of opinion pretending to be something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes" are not hooked.

There are tons of fake awards—people call them “spikes.” The forum said private schools like them because they show the family has money and can afford tuition.

You can show you are full pay in many, many other ways.

I just want a school with plenty of competent students who are actually there to learn. Going to college just to show off wealth or status is stupid

[Anonymous]

Sounds about right. I didn't realize this when my DD applied, I should have just burned the application money in the fireplace. Even with a 1560 SAT, perfect grades in challending courses and meaningful ec's, her changes of getting into a LAC were basically zero. For schools with incoming classes of 500, you have thousands of kids competing for maybe 100 unallocated spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes" are not hooked.

There are tons of fake awards—people call them “spikes.” The forum said private schools like them because they show the family has money and can afford tuition.

The simple way to show full pay is to not check the "do you need financial aid" box. Save yourself some work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes" are not hooked.

There are tons of fake awards—people call them “spikes.” The forum said private schools like them because they show the family has money and can afford tuition.

The simple way to show full pay is to not check the "do you need financial aid" box. Save yourself some work.

I in fact do not care about those silly crowds and strange mentality to polish their students but apparently some private schools love them

[Anonymous]

Plenty of super smart legacy (as in higher scores than the non-legacy admits). Some percentage of athletes are super smart too. I’m not even getting into “academically compromised.” This is just ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes" are not hooked.

There are tons of fake awards—people call them “spikes.” The forum said private schools like them because they show the family has money and can afford tuition.

You can show you are full pay in many, many other ways.

I just want a school with plenty of competent students who are actually there to learn. Going to college just to show off wealth or status is stupid

This is most colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of super smart legacy (as in higher scores than the non-legacy admits). Some percentage of athletes are super smart too. I’m not even getting into “academically compromised.” This is just ridiculous.

Is it really 100%? Would you confidently say that - then even Top 20 schools—with their athlete and legacy admits—should still end up with about 75% academically strong students.

[Anonymous]

The fact that you’re purportedly concerned about academic strength, yet you are asking an LLM, when anyone with any critical thinking skills would understand the LLM’s answer is based on no data, shows how dumb this is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you’re purportedly concerned about academic strength, yet you are asking an LLM, when anyone with any critical thinking skills would understand the LLM’s answer is based on no data, shows how dumb this is.

Do you have better way to provide answer? I'd love to know your analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of super smart legacy (as in higher scores than the non-legacy admits). Some percentage of athletes are super smart too. I’m not even getting into “academically compromised.” This is just ridiculous.

Is it really 100%? Would you confidently say that - then even Top 20 schools—with their athlete and legacy admits—should still end up with about 75% academically strong students.

My kid attends a SLAC that is not a “top” one, below top 20, and the kids are really smart. The level of work demanded is high and the kids are focused and academic. I’m sure there are exceptions but I don’t think it’s that difficult to find schools where most students are serious.

[Anonymous]

Sure, you can criticize AI, but honestly, we don’t have any clear truth anywhere. You can criticize other people too, but you don’t have the answers either. And no one can really say higher education is working the way it should when the news keeps reporting that employers would rather use AI than hire entry-level workers.

[Anonymous]

Why do you assume the legacies are dumb? The Princeton student newspaper’s survey shows legacy have higher SATs than non legacies. They also broke out scores by athletes, etc.

[Anonymous]

What is your real concern? Not enough serious kids at top schools? Fear that your kid won’t be admitted because he/she’s not in a priority area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you assume the legacies are dumb? The Princeton student newspaper’s survey shows legacy have higher SATs than non legacies. They also broke out scores by athletes, etc.

How many legacy admits would you say are academically strong?