Families with Ivy-league Caliber Siblings

[Anonymous]

For every stellar kid you hear about getting into an Ivy, there are multiple who don’t. I have seen it play out firsthand. We have a relative who attended a great private HS, was valedictorian, perfect grades, almost perfect SATs, maximized every AP opportunity available, did a lot of sincere community service that he can speak passionately about, participated on school teams, was a school leader, earned many awards over the years, etc. He was rejected or waitlisted at all of them. He’s a great conversationalist and gifted writer so I seriously doubt his interview or essay blew it. He had devoted his teen years to ticking off those boxes and was left stunned. Fortunately, he’s a great kid who will thrive elsewhere. But the fact is that nobody can argue that it isn’t partly luck. He had peers who were admitted to schools that rejected him even though they had lower class rank and didn’t take as many APs. Those kids had a hook. They either were recruited for sports or were a legacy.

I’m not even bothering with my kids. If they naturally find themselves in a place where they are competitive applicants, I won’t stop them from trying. But I will not force them to sign up for extra academic programs or pressure them to pursue activities that they don’t enjoy.

[Anonymous]

There's a lot of randomness, but of course within a given family the sibs are more likely to share traits that appeal to college admissions officers: such as being exceptional athletes and/or exceptional students. Or having parents who attended these colleges themselves and have resources to support their kids' education.

And while I haven't seen any stats for this, I would bet that having a sibling at Yale would up your chances at Yale (and at peer institutions too). Probably a combo of having traits that appeal and a sense of subconscious validation that you're a good candidate. They do ask on your application about where sibs attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t think it’s random to some extent you’re naive.

When there are well more qualified applicants than spots, there is a significant element of randomness.

I say this as someone who has been admitted to multiple programs with less than 10% acceptance rates. I’m not so arrogant as to say I wasn’t the beneficiary of a random choice between another qualified applicant and myself.

Nothing that has such a detailed selection process is random. At all. They are antithetical.

I understand they may appear to be random to you. But they are not. People read, select, and teams debate, and vote. That's the opposite of random.

Element of randomness in elite college admission is exactly 0%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t think it’s random to some extent you’re naive.

When there are well more qualified applicants than spots, there is a significant element of randomness.

I say this as someone who has been admitted to multiple programs with less than 10% acceptance rates. I’m not so arrogant as to say I wasn’t the beneficiary of a random choice between another qualified applicant and myself.

Nothing that has such a detailed selection process is random. At all. They are antithetical.

I understand they may appear to be random to you. But they are not. People read, select, and teams debate, and vote. That's the opposite of random.

Element of randomness in elite college admission is exactly 0%.

You’re just wrong. There are multiple times per admissions cycle where admissions officers have to pick between two almost identical applicants. That’s where the randomness comes in.

Trust me — I know enough about admissions to be right about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t think it’s random to some extent you’re naive.

When there are well more qualified applicants than spots, there is a significant element of randomness.

I say this as someone who has been admitted to multiple programs with less than 10% acceptance rates. I’m not so arrogant as to say I wasn’t the beneficiary of a random choice between another qualified applicant and myself.

And your evidence of your benefit of being chosen at random is....

...did you go and look at your admissions jacket where you enrolled? You are allowed to do that by law, you know.

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html?

I also want to point out the incredible irony of your statement. You were accepted to "multiple programs with less than 10% acceptance rates". So you applied to more than 10X that number of programs? No?

Then guess what?

You were a strong applicant and it wasn't random!

Maths!

[Anonymous]

Ok, maybe random is the wrong word. But it is certainly not the predictable process many seem to describe it as.

Take this quote from a 2003 NYT article:

The process at Wesleyan, as at about four dozen other private colleges that reject far more applicants than they accept, is often so idiosyncratic, unscientific and dependent on the personal tastes (or even the mood) of the people reading a particular file as to defy most strategizing by outsiders.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/01/19/nyregion/memo-from-wesleyan-a-closer-look-at-the-mystery-of-college-admissions.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t think it’s random to some extent you’re naive.

When there are well more qualified applicants than spots, there is a significant element of randomness.

I say this as someone who has been admitted to multiple programs with less than 10% acceptance rates. I’m not so arrogant as to say I wasn’t the beneficiary of a random choice between another qualified applicant and myself.

And your evidence of your benefit of being chosen at random is....

...did you go and look at your admissions jacket where you enrolled? You are allowed to do that by law, you know.

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html?

I also want to point out the incredible irony of your statement. You were accepted to "multiple programs with less than 10% acceptance rates". So you applied to more than 10X that number of programs? No?

Then guess what?

You were a strong applicant and it wasn't random!

Maths!

I know what FERPA is, but thanks for pointing out the obvious. If you think these are merit based decisions, and that the people who were admitted are exclusively the strongest candidates, you’re exceptionally naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t think it’s random to some extent you’re naive.

When there are well more qualified applicants than spots, there is a significant element of randomness.

I say this as someone who has been admitted to multiple programs with less than 10% acceptance rates. I’m not so arrogant as to say I wasn’t the beneficiary of a random choice between another qualified applicant and myself.

Nothing that has such a detailed selection process is random. At all. They are antithetical.

I understand they may appear to be random to you. But they are not. People read, select, and teams debate, and vote. That's the opposite of random.

Element of randomness in elite college admission is exactly 0%.

You’re just wrong. There are multiple times per admissions cycle where admissions officers have to pick between two almost identical applicants. That’s where the randomness comes in.

Trust me — I know enough about admissions to be right about this.

Sigh... no, you don't.

If they are picking... it isn't random. Get it?

They like one better then the other, no matter how nominal.

No elite school has so many applicants that they have to fill a seat with someone they choose at random. There is always some difference. A skill or talent, a hobby, a geography, a relationship with a certain HS, even, yes, a few points higher on a test score, although I think that one is way down the list of points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know what FERPA is, but thanks for pointing out the obvious. If you think these are merit based decisions, and that the people who were admitted are exclusively the strongest candidates, you’re exceptionally naive.

Merit can take many forms. I did not say I know the meritorious qualities upon which they were chosen.

I simply disagreed that it was random.

And (assuming you are the pp) I asked for your evidence your selections were random, and I guess the fact you didn't offer any means you have none.

It's not good to mislead people entering the horrifically difficult world of elite college admissions with bs like "it's random".

There are dozens of books on this topic, many written by Ivy adcoms and many describing the actual process, and not one ever says "we just chose at random". And yes I have read many of them.

[Anonymous]

You all really don’t get it. You can pick between two candidates and have it be an essentially random process. And if it isn’t literally a coin flip, it’s at least a choice based on criteria no one can strategize for.

Read The Gatekeepers or just look at the quote from the NYT article I posted above. Even if random isn’t the right word, the process at the schools with the lowest acceptance rates are, once you clear the GPA and SAT/ACT bars, not something you can reliably strategize for. I speak as someone whose spouse works in higher ed and has had private conversations with deans at top schools about this process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, maybe random is the wrong word. But it is certainly not the predictable process many seem to describe it as.

Take this quote from a 2003 NYT article:

The process at Wesleyan, as at about four dozen other private colleges that reject far more applicants than they accept, is often so idiosyncratic, unscientific and dependent on the personal tastes (or even the mood) of the people reading a particular file as to defy most strategizing by outsiders.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/01/19/nyregion/memo-from-wesleyan-a-closer-look-at-the-mystery-of-college-admissions.html

Yes, random is EXACTLY THE WRONG WORD. So don't use it. Or "lottery".

Random and predictable are not opposites. Not in job applications, college admissions, dating, or your dinner selection from the perspective of the waiter.

Don't mislead people.

As for Wesleyan, read "The Gatekeepers" (by the author of the article you linked), and point out the page where random selections are made there. You won't find it.

[Anonymous]

OP- you are now "solidly DC middle class" -does that mean you can fully pay for college or will you need financial aid? It really does make a difference at some Ivy-league schools. Think about it, all things being equal they will take someone who can pay full-freight over someone who can't. There might be 3 or 4 Ivy League schools that truly are need-blind but the others really aren't.

The problem about growing up lower/lower middle class is that you don't have a sense of entitlement that people who grew up upper middle to upper class have. I grew up in a upper middle class family and my husband grew up in a lower class family. He doesn't realize you can finagle and push your way into opportunities. He would never ask anything or try to leverage any advantage to help our kids because he doesn't realize it can be done. Our youngest didn't get into a gifted program based on school testing. He accepted it even though he was puzzled because our youngest is clever. I took our youngest to get privately assessed and based on those scores he got into gifted program and is in gifted classes at school. So now he is tracked into a higher achieving cohort.

Same with sports or outside activities. You don't wait around for opportunities to fall into your lap- you go make those opportunities happen for your kid. I had my kids go to Kumon starting in preschool- I really believe it let me connect with Asian parents who value education (we are Latino) and who are knowledgeable about educational programs, who the best teachers are at our elementary school, what opportunities are put there, etc.

In sports my husband coaches at the younger ages. He wants to be completely fair, but I convince him to favor our kids with slightly more playing time, better positions, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, maybe random is the wrong word. But it is certainly not the predictable process many seem to describe it as.

Take this quote from a 2003 NYT article:

The process at Wesleyan, as at about four dozen other private colleges that reject far more applicants than they accept, is often so idiosyncratic, unscientific and dependent on the personal tastes (or even the mood) of the people reading a particular file as to defy most strategizing by outsiders.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/01/19/nyregion/memo-from-wesleyan-a-closer-look-at-the-mystery-of-college-admissions.html

Yes, random is EXACTLY THE WRONG WORD. So don't use it. Or "lottery".

Random and predictable are not opposites. Not in job applications, college admissions, dating, or your dinner selection from the perspective of the waiter.

Don't mislead people.

As for Wesleyan, read "The Gatekeepers" (by the author of the article you linked), and point out the page where random selections are made there. You won't find it.

Jeez. Calm down.

Can we at least agree that no one without a hook can strategize for these things? Given that fact, it might as well be random because you can’t do much to influence the process in your favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all really don’t get it. You can pick between two candidates and have it be an essentially random process. And if it isn’t literally a coin flip, it’s at least a choice based on criteria no one can strategize for.

Read The Gatekeepers or just look at the quote from the NYT article I posted above. Even if random isn’t the right word, the process at the schools with the lowest acceptance rates are, once you clear the GPA and SAT/ACT bars, not something you can reliably strategize for. I speak as someone whose spouse works in higher ed and has had private conversations with deans at top schools about this process.

There is no such thing as "an essentially random process". Something is either random or it isn't.

The fact that you now feel obliged to use "essentially" is a concession.

The fact that you can't strategize for it is also untrue. Most students can't with high accuracy, but if you don't think you can try to be the kind of student a certain college is looking for you are incorrect. Of course, that is doing it in reverse. The proper way is to find out what kind of student you are and find the colleges that are looking for that.

Don't mislead people to think it is random. No one who has actually read The Gatekeepers would think that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, maybe random is the wrong word. But it is certainly not the predictable process many seem to describe it as.

Take this quote from a 2003 NYT article:

The process at Wesleyan, as at about four dozen other private colleges that reject far more applicants than they accept, is often so idiosyncratic, unscientific and dependent on the personal tastes (or even the mood) of the people reading a particular file as to defy most strategizing by outsiders.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/01/19/nyregion/memo-from-wesleyan-a-closer-look-at-the-mystery-of-college-admissions.html

Yes, random is EXACTLY THE WRONG WORD. So don't use it. Or "lottery".

Random and predictable are not opposites. Not in job applications, college admissions, dating, or your dinner selection from the perspective of the waiter.

Don't mislead people.

As for Wesleyan, read "The Gatekeepers" (by the author of the article you linked), and point out the page where random selections are made there. You won't find it.

Jeez. Calm down.

Can we at least agree that no one without a hook can strategize for these things? Given that fact, it might as well be random because you can’t do much to influence the process in your favor.

No, we do not agree on that either. There are many things you can do to increase your chances at elite college admissions. And there are many books on the subject that give it the detail it needs that you cannot get on DCUM.

And yes, it may appear random to you, but it is not a random process and there is no element of chance in it.