Anonymous wrote:DD with GPA 4.52 (Junior year), 1580 SAT, all 5s in all her 8 APs from TJ with excellent ECs for CS, volunteering/community service and an internship did not get into any of the Ivies and waitlisted at CMU. Major - CS. Obviously we are disappointed. College admissions seems like a lottery.
Its not as much of a lottery as some try to convinces themselves
The ivies are seeking exceptionalism which could include but not necessarily be restricted to GPA and have distinguished themselves their multi-centuries consistent abilities to identify and select exceptional individuals
So the question is who should Harvard take, your kid who scored a 1580 or Al Gore who scored 1355. Your kid could certainly be more talented with better future success than Al Gore, but obviously Gore was a very successful admit by any measure. Other SAT scores:
George Bush: Yale (Governor, President + Veteran) - 1200
John Kerry: Yale (Senator, Secretary of State, etc. + US Navy veteran awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star with valor) - 1190
Bill Clinton: Georgetown, not ivy but elite (Governor, President) - 1030
Al Franken: Harvard (Comedian, Senator) - 1020
Also, David Hogg was admitted to Harvard with a 1270
Not necessarily a fan of any of the above but objectively they seem to know how to identify and "pick" exceptional talent
You have listed "exceptional" talent in only one area - Leadership/Politics. My kid will definitely not be as exceptional as those you have listed in this field but her chosen field is CS .. She has academic and extra-curricular credentials to justify that she has the "potential" to be exceptional in her chosen field. I guess that should be acknowledged and accepted in atleast one of the top schools in my opinion.
Is she white? If so - thousands of others are ahead of her. I am sorry. She will do well in life because she works hard. Best.
NP. Thousands ahead of her? A female from the number 1 stem HS in the country at the top of her class in GPA? I don’t think so
Your extremely high stats kid is a dime a dozen in the very top schools’ applicant pool.
Ugh. Not the "dime a dozen" poster again! I really hate that phrase, but there is a correlative point that is important. PPP, a top girl stats-wise from TJ should do well, but the stats are the base level for consideration, not the end all be all. If the stats are all she has, make sure you have plenty of target and safety schools (& I mean true targets and safeties). There is much to love about mid tier schools, and they may offer great merit to a high stats kid. If you want top-rated, name-prestige schools, she will have to stand out with national awards, great recs and school-specific fantastic essays if no other hooks. It can be done, but don't count on it. Even with these perks, have some targets and safeties in the mix. Also, consider what schools might be the best fit for her, and where she can shine. It might not be what you think. Mine did not apply to Harvard because she didn't like the competitive culture. She was fortunate enough to get into most of the tops schools she applied for, but she was prepared to go to one of the safeties (which was all she had for a long time) and found things to love about them. We are MCPS magnet.
The point is that for every high stat kid from tj in the top 25% of the class they are competing with at least 10+ equally high stat kids from throughout the US and the world, and of these the T5 or T10 will take maybe 1? The problem is that the T5s and T10s reserve between 10% and 20% of their class to academically dramatically underqualified students from the urm category
The supreme court review on the white/asian discrimination issue will be telling on which way the country will go on this topic, it could get worse, stay the same, or it could potentially get better for these high stat no hook white/asian kids depending on the result
There is so much wrong w/ this. Firstly, have you been some of these top schools? They are heavily white and Asian. They NEED diversity to enhance the education! Secondly, what makes you think that URM admits are "under"qualified? When did you become the arbiter of "qualifications?" This notion that there is a specific bar based on testing (which is NOT an indicator of intelligence) and grades is a fallacy. While those are factors, there are other factors too. I suggest reading Jeff Selingo's book on college admissions. There are not set qualifications. These are (in many cases) private institutions who are building a class. They do not have quotas per school or for URMs for that matter, but they do want diversity. What different perspective will student X bring to the college? That's why no school wants all CS kids who do robotics. I'm sure TJ has more than 1 kid get into top schools in most years (I know of at least 5 from our magnet admitted to one top school alone). Stop playing the victim drama. If you want to stand out and appeal to top schools, diversify your kid's interests/skills. Show the school that your kid really loves that school with fantastic and specific essays. Some kids shoot the Ivies and top 10 for status, and it shows in their essays. It's not just about race. If you are going to be upset by admissions priorities, get upset by large donors and legacy admits!
Signed, White parent whose kid was admitted to several Ivy/T10.
Diversity is woke bs
The issue is that large portions of whites and asians are specifically excluded from real opportunities for no other reason than the color of their skin in order to reserve slots for and only for urms regardless of qualifications and yes while the urm in theory may be more "qualified" in reality this is not the case
The ivies and other elite colleges are majority white or white jews + asians but that is because these kids have been selected from the "real" pool of applicants in competition with 20, 30, 50+ other candidates for each slot, once a cap is reached then the door is closed for these people regardless of what they bring to the table - this is obviously morally wrong from a humanistic perspective
In reality this is doing a massive dis-service to the urms because it treats them as handicapped people
Also, an ivy league grad from an extended family with many ivies, but the stories of these academically exceptional + strong ec kids not getting into T10s or T20s in favor of a system to allow a group of students in based on racist policies is a systemic problem
Your bias and bitterness have warped your ability to be rational. Stop the conspiracy theory crap. Stop assuming urms are "underqualified in practice." You don't know this. Realize that there are far more extremely high achieving kids than spaces at Ivy League institutions. The admits are highly "qualified." Stop separating people by race or assuming diversity is "bs." Get some diversity in your life. There is no "shut door" or hard cap. Read what I wrote earlier. Successful applications are about far more than base stats. Your perspective is exceedingly narrow. My kid is from the hardest demographic to earn admittance to Ivy league, and yet they were. In the most competitive year. The edge clearly didn't come from demographics, it came from outstanding essays, noteworthy awards, leadership, recommendations and great ECs. High stats got the foot in the door. That's all. but, go ahead and think that an URM is stealing your kid's spot. Heaven forbid they should try to actively earn it. And, completely disregard the large donors, legacies, networked and athletes. This is what tells me that you are the racist entity here.
Lol you are delusional and in a bubble
I'm not a urm but have a nephew that is a urm through and he is at a T3 now, as an uncle I was obviously elated that he was accepted but as an ivy grad was dumbfounded particularly since everybody in our extended family could compare the non-urm kids at ivies to this particularly nephew. I have a niece from the same family and now we are anticipating the same preferential treatment which for our particular family is great, but for the endless supply of kids from tj etc that are more typical of what we were used to as classmates at ivies honestly feel bad for them and an objective sense of inequity
By the way, when comparing academics, test scores, ecs, athletics, interpersonal skills, etc. we can see an enormous difference in our particular extended families case. The crazy thing is that he is a urm but from a wealthy white collar family but probably a top 25% introverted student with the only distinguishing characteristics being that he can check the urm box + happens to be 6'6" but unfortunately zero athletic abilities or desire, he is the type of kid people would want to succeed but we are still baffled how he got it, he is doing reasonably well so he is clearly capable of succeeding at the T3 academically but its obvious that others were objectively more deserving
You call me delusional and in a bubble because I presented rational data points, but then you counter with a singular anecdote and ranting? Talk about a bubble. You are clearly obsessed with your own limited perspective and not able to take on new information. Whatever, dude.
Anonymous wrote:DD with GPA 4.52 (Junior year), 1580 SAT, all 5s in all her 8 APs from TJ with excellent ECs for CS, volunteering/community service and an internship did not get into any of the Ivies and waitlisted at CMU. Major - CS. Obviously we are disappointed. College admissions seems like a lottery.
Its not as much of a lottery as some try to convinces themselves
The ivies are seeking exceptionalism which could include but not necessarily be restricted to GPA and have distinguished themselves their multi-centuries consistent abilities to identify and select exceptional individuals
So the question is who should Harvard take, your kid who scored a 1580 or Al Gore who scored 1355. Your kid could certainly be more talented with better future success than Al Gore, but obviously Gore was a very successful admit by any measure. Other SAT scores:
George Bush: Yale (Governor, President + Veteran) - 1200
John Kerry: Yale (Senator, Secretary of State, etc. + US Navy veteran awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star with valor) - 1190
Bill Clinton: Georgetown, not ivy but elite (Governor, President) - 1030
Al Franken: Harvard (Comedian, Senator) - 1020
Also, David Hogg was admitted to Harvard with a 1270
Not necessarily a fan of any of the above but objectively they seem to know how to identify and "pick" exceptional talent
You have listed "exceptional" talent in only one area - Leadership/Politics. My kid will definitely not be as exceptional as those you have listed in this field but her chosen field is CS .. She has academic and extra-curricular credentials to justify that she has the "potential" to be exceptional in her chosen field. I guess that should be acknowledged and accepted in atleast one of the top schools in my opinion.
Is she white? If so - thousands of others are ahead of her. I am sorry. She will do well in life because she works hard. Best.
NP. Thousands ahead of her? A female from the number 1 stem HS in the country at the top of her class in GPA? I don’t think so
Your extremely high stats kid is a dime a dozen in the very top schools’ applicant pool.
Ugh. Not the "dime a dozen" poster again! I really hate that phrase, but there is a correlative point that is important. PPP, a top girl stats-wise from TJ should do well, but the stats are the base level for consideration, not the end all be all. If the stats are all she has, make sure you have plenty of target and safety schools (& I mean true targets and safeties). There is much to love about mid tier schools, and they may offer great merit to a high stats kid. If you want top-rated, name-prestige schools, she will have to stand out with national awards, great recs and school-specific fantastic essays if no other hooks. It can be done, but don't count on it. Even with these perks, have some targets and safeties in the mix. Also, consider what schools might be the best fit for her, and where she can shine. It might not be what you think. Mine did not apply to Harvard because she didn't like the competitive culture. She was fortunate enough to get into most of the tops schools she applied for, but she was prepared to go to one of the safeties (which was all she had for a long time) and found things to love about them. We are MCPS magnet.
The point is that for every high stat kid from tj in the top 25% of the class they are competing with at least 10+ equally high stat kids from throughout the US and the world, and of these the T5 or T10 will take maybe 1? The problem is that the T5s and T10s reserve between 10% and 20% of their class to academically dramatically underqualified students from the urm category
The supreme court review on the white/asian discrimination issue will be telling on which way the country will go on this topic, it could get worse, stay the same, or it could potentially get better for these high stat no hook white/asian kids depending on the result
There is so much wrong w/ this. Firstly, have you been some of these top schools? They are heavily white and Asian. They NEED diversity to enhance the education! Secondly, what makes you think that URM admits are "under"qualified? When did you become the arbiter of "qualifications?" This notion that there is a specific bar based on testing (which is NOT an indicator of intelligence) and grades is a fallacy. While those are factors, there are other factors too. I suggest reading Jeff Selingo's book on college admissions. There are not set qualifications. These are (in many cases) private institutions who are building a class. They do not have quotas per school or for URMs for that matter, but they do want diversity. What different perspective will student X bring to the college? That's why no school wants all CS kids who do robotics. I'm sure TJ has more than 1 kid get into top schools in most years (I know of at least 5 from our magnet admitted to one top school alone). Stop playing the victim drama. If you want to stand out and appeal to top schools, diversify your kid's interests/skills. Show the school that your kid really loves that school with fantastic and specific essays. Some kids shoot the Ivies and top 10 for status, and it shows in their essays. It's not just about race. If you are going to be upset by admissions priorities, get upset by large donors and legacy admits!
Signed, White parent whose kid was admitted to several Ivy/T10.
Diversity is woke bs
The issue is that large portions of whites and asians are specifically excluded from real opportunities for no other reason than the color of their skin in order to reserve slots for and only for urms regardless of qualifications and yes while the urm in theory may be more "qualified" in reality this is not the case
The ivies and other elite colleges are majority white or white jews + asians but that is because these kids have been selected from the "real" pool of applicants in competition with 20, 30, 50+ other candidates for each slot, once a cap is reached then the door is closed for these people regardless of what they bring to the table - this is obviously morally wrong from a humanistic perspective
In reality this is doing a massive dis-service to the urms because it treats them as handicapped people
Also, an ivy league grad from an extended family with many ivies, but the stories of these academically exceptional + strong ec kids not getting into T10s or T20s in favor of a system to allow a group of students in based on racist policies is a systemic problem
Your bias and bitterness have warped your ability to be rational. Stop the conspiracy theory crap. Stop assuming urms are "underqualified in practice." You don't know this. Realize that there are far more extremely high achieving kids than spaces at Ivy League institutions. The admits are highly "qualified." Stop separating people by race or assuming diversity is "bs." Get some diversity in your life. There is no "shut door" or hard cap. Read what I wrote earlier. Successful applications are about far more than base stats. Your perspective is exceedingly narrow. My kid is from the hardest demographic to earn admittance to Ivy league, and yet they were. In the most competitive year. The edge clearly didn't come from demographics, it came from outstanding essays, noteworthy awards, leadership, recommendations and great ECs. High stats got the foot in the door. That's all. but, go ahead and think that an URM is stealing your kid's spot. Heaven forbid they should try to actively earn it. And, completely disregard the large donors, legacies, networked and athletes. This is what tells me that you are the racist entity here.
Lol you are delusional and in a bubble
I'm not a urm but have a nephew that is a urm through and he is at a T3 now, as an uncle I was obviously elated that he was accepted but as an ivy grad was dumbfounded particularly since everybody in our extended family could compare the non-urm kids at ivies to this particularly nephew. I have a niece from the same family and now we are anticipating the same preferential treatment which for our particular family is great, but for the endless supply of kids from tj etc that are more typical of what we were used to as classmates at ivies honestly feel bad for them and an objective sense of inequity
By the way, when comparing academics, test scores, ecs, athletics, interpersonal skills, etc. we can see an enormous difference in our particular extended families case. The crazy thing is that he is a urm but from a wealthy white collar family but probably a top 25% introverted student with the only distinguishing characteristics being that he can check the urm box + happens to be 6'6" but unfortunately zero athletic abilities or desire, he is the type of kid people would want to succeed but we are still baffled how he got it, he is doing reasonably well so he is clearly capable of succeeding at the T3 academically but its obvious that others were objectively more deserving
You call me delusional and in a bubble because I presented rational data points, but then you counter with a singular anecdote and ranting? Talk about a bubble. You are clearly obsessed with your own limited perspective and not able to take on new information. Whatever, dude.
Your cope + seething post was idiotic lol
Let's make this simple for you to understand, student-athletes that are strong academically + D1 level athletes get first priority in admissions at the ivies. Others will get in, but after this group is admitted. This position is supported by the vast majority of those that donate and manage the ivies and will continue to be this way until the end of time.
Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.
All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, admitted athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average applicant, that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".
The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity.
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.
I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.
in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.
You are living in a delusional bubble convinced of your own fake reality and your envy of successful student athletes is glaringly obvious lol.
The athletics are a core fundamental component of the ivy league culture, has been for centuries and will be as long as they exist. Not only do the alumni network support this but the large big ticket donors are laser focused on athletics as well. While you are correct that the spectator audience is comically small it has no bearing on the funding, financial support and priority provided to these programs - look at some of their athletic facilities and in many cases they are better than big time D1 sports program facilities paid for by donors that get their name on a shiny plaque on the facilities.
As an example, over 20% of Princeton's undergraduate student body are D1 athletes, Harvard is 10%, Dartmouth 21%, Yale 16%, compared to Ohio State 2.5%, Penn State 3.0%. In fact, in many ways what distinguishes the Ivy League from other good colleges are that athletics are valued to a greater degree and more ingrained into the student/alumni culture.
So you can tell yourself that you don't think the ivies should care about athletics and since you think that way you want to force your lie into a perceived reality.
The reality is that the ivies prioritize students that exhibit strong (maybe not top 1%) academics + D1 level athletic abilities to the extent that they literally get priority in admissions and often get "soft" acceptances their junior year of high school. They are looking for exceptionalism which comes in many forms to include proven accomplishments in both academics + athletics.
thank you for proving my point. You are simply saying athletic recruiting is ok because the schools want to do it. I agree that it's a value judgment the schools are making. So if you think this is ok then other hooks are equally acceptable if the school places that kind of value on it. Nothing is wrong because the school gets to choose.
Anonymous wrote:DD with GPA 4.52 (Junior year), 1580 SAT, all 5s in all her 8 APs from TJ with excellent ECs for CS, volunteering/community service and an internship did not get into any of the Ivies and waitlisted at CMU. Major - CS. Obviously we are disappointed. College admissions seems like a lottery.
Its not as much of a lottery as some try to convinces themselves
The ivies are seeking exceptionalism which could include but not necessarily be restricted to GPA and have distinguished themselves their multi-centuries consistent abilities to identify and select exceptional individuals
So the question is who should Harvard take, your kid who scored a 1580 or Al Gore who scored 1355. Your kid could certainly be more talented with better future success than Al Gore, but obviously Gore was a very successful admit by any measure. Other SAT scores:
George Bush: Yale (Governor, President + Veteran) - 1200
John Kerry: Yale (Senator, Secretary of State, etc. + US Navy veteran awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star with valor) - 1190
Bill Clinton: Georgetown, not ivy but elite (Governor, President) - 1030
Al Franken: Harvard (Comedian, Senator) - 1020
Also, David Hogg was admitted to Harvard with a 1270
Not necessarily a fan of any of the above but objectively they seem to know how to identify and "pick" exceptional talent
You have listed "exceptional" talent in only one area - Leadership/Politics. My kid will definitely not be as exceptional as those you have listed in this field but her chosen field is CS .. She has academic and extra-curricular credentials to justify that she has the "potential" to be exceptional in her chosen field. I guess that should be acknowledged and accepted in atleast one of the top schools in my opinion.
Is she white? If so - thousands of others are ahead of her. I am sorry. She will do well in life because she works hard. Best.
NP. Thousands ahead of her? A female from the number 1 stem HS in the country at the top of her class in GPA? I don’t think so
Your extremely high stats kid is a dime a dozen in the very top schools’ applicant pool.
Ugh. Not the "dime a dozen" poster again! I really hate that phrase, but there is a correlative point that is important. PPP, a top girl stats-wise from TJ should do well, but the stats are the base level for consideration, not the end all be all. If the stats are all she has, make sure you have plenty of target and safety schools (& I mean true targets and safeties). There is much to love about mid tier schools, and they may offer great merit to a high stats kid. If you want top-rated, name-prestige schools, she will have to stand out with national awards, great recs and school-specific fantastic essays if no other hooks. It can be done, but don't count on it. Even with these perks, have some targets and safeties in the mix. Also, consider what schools might be the best fit for her, and where she can shine. It might not be what you think. Mine did not apply to Harvard because she didn't like the competitive culture. She was fortunate enough to get into most of the tops schools she applied for, but she was prepared to go to one of the safeties (which was all she had for a long time) and found things to love about them. We are MCPS magnet.
The point is that for every high stat kid from tj in the top 25% of the class they are competing with at least 10+ equally high stat kids from throughout the US and the world, and of these the T5 or T10 will take maybe 1? The problem is that the T5s and T10s reserve between 10% and 20% of their class to academically dramatically underqualified students from the urm category
The supreme court review on the white/asian discrimination issue will be telling on which way the country will go on this topic, it could get worse, stay the same, or it could potentially get better for these high stat no hook white/asian kids depending on the result
There is so much wrong w/ this. Firstly, have you been some of these top schools? They are heavily white and Asian. They NEED diversity to enhance the education! Secondly, what makes you think that URM admits are "under"qualified? When did you become the arbiter of "qualifications?" This notion that there is a specific bar based on testing (which is NOT an indicator of intelligence) and grades is a fallacy. While those are factors, there are other factors too. I suggest reading Jeff Selingo's book on college admissions. There are not set qualifications. These are (in many cases) private institutions who are building a class. They do not have quotas per school or for URMs for that matter, but they do want diversity. What different perspective will student X bring to the college? That's why no school wants all CS kids who do robotics. I'm sure TJ has more than 1 kid get into top schools in most years (I know of at least 5 from our magnet admitted to one top school alone). Stop playing the victim drama. If you want to stand out and appeal to top schools, diversify your kid's interests/skills. Show the school that your kid really loves that school with fantastic and specific essays. Some kids shoot the Ivies and top 10 for status, and it shows in their essays. It's not just about race. If you are going to be upset by admissions priorities, get upset by large donors and legacy admits!
Signed, White parent whose kid was admitted to several Ivy/T10.
Diversity is woke bs
The issue is that large portions of whites and asians are specifically excluded from real opportunities for no other reason than the color of their skin in order to reserve slots for and only for urms regardless of qualifications and yes while the urm in theory may be more "qualified" in reality this is not the case
The ivies and other elite colleges are majority white or white jews + asians but that is because these kids have been selected from the "real" pool of applicants in competition with 20, 30, 50+ other candidates for each slot, once a cap is reached then the door is closed for these people regardless of what they bring to the table - this is obviously morally wrong from a humanistic perspective
In reality this is doing a massive dis-service to the urms because it treats them as handicapped people
Also, an ivy league grad from an extended family with many ivies, but the stories of these academically exceptional + strong ec kids not getting into T10s or T20s in favor of a system to allow a group of students in based on racist policies is a systemic problem
Your bias and bitterness have warped your ability to be rational. Stop the conspiracy theory crap. Stop assuming urms are "underqualified in practice." You don't know this. Realize that there are far more extremely high achieving kids than spaces at Ivy League institutions. The admits are highly "qualified." Stop separating people by race or assuming diversity is "bs." Get some diversity in your life. There is no "shut door" or hard cap. Read what I wrote earlier. Successful applications are about far more than base stats. Your perspective is exceedingly narrow. My kid is from the hardest demographic to earn admittance to Ivy league, and yet they were. In the most competitive year. The edge clearly didn't come from demographics, it came from outstanding essays, noteworthy awards, leadership, recommendations and great ECs. High stats got the foot in the door. That's all. but, go ahead and think that an URM is stealing your kid's spot. Heaven forbid they should try to actively earn it. And, completely disregard the large donors, legacies, networked and athletes. This is what tells me that you are the racist entity here.
Lol you are delusional and in a bubble
I'm not a urm but have a nephew that is a urm through and he is at a T3 now, as an uncle I was obviously elated that he was accepted but as an ivy grad was dumbfounded particularly since everybody in our extended family could compare the non-urm kids at ivies to this particularly nephew. I have a niece from the same family and now we are anticipating the same preferential treatment which for our particular family is great, but for the endless supply of kids from tj etc that are more typical of what we were used to as classmates at ivies honestly feel bad for them and an objective sense of inequity
By the way, when comparing academics, test scores, ecs, athletics, interpersonal skills, etc. we can see an enormous difference in our particular extended families case. The crazy thing is that he is a urm but from a wealthy white collar family but probably a top 25% introverted student with the only distinguishing characteristics being that he can check the urm box + happens to be 6'6" but unfortunately zero athletic abilities or desire, he is the type of kid people would want to succeed but we are still baffled how he got it, he is doing reasonably well so he is clearly capable of succeeding at the T3 academically but its obvious that others were objectively more deserving
You call me delusional and in a bubble because I presented rational data points, but then you counter with a singular anecdote and ranting? Talk about a bubble. You are clearly obsessed with your own limited perspective and not able to take on new information. Whatever, dude.
Your cope + seething post was idiotic lol
Let's make this simple for you to understand, student-athletes that are strong academically + D1 level athletes get first priority in admissions at the ivies. Others will get in, but after this group is admitted. This position is supported by the vast majority of those that donate and manage the ivies and will continue to be this way until the end of time.
let me make it simple for you to understand, URMs that are strong academically will also get priority in admissions at the ivies. Others will get in, but after this group is admitted. This position is supported by the vast majority of those that donate and manage the ivies and will continue to be this way until the end of time
Anonymous wrote:DD with GPA 4.52 (Junior year), 1580 SAT, all 5s in all her 8 APs from TJ with excellent ECs for CS, volunteering/community service and an internship did not get into any of the Ivies and waitlisted at CMU. Major - CS. Obviously we are disappointed. College admissions seems like a lottery.
Its not as much of a lottery as some try to convinces themselves
The ivies are seeking exceptionalism which could include but not necessarily be restricted to GPA and have distinguished themselves their multi-centuries consistent abilities to identify and select exceptional individuals
So the question is who should Harvard take, your kid who scored a 1580 or Al Gore who scored 1355. Your kid could certainly be more talented with better future success than Al Gore, but obviously Gore was a very successful admit by any measure. Other SAT scores:
George Bush: Yale (Governor, President + Veteran) - 1200
John Kerry: Yale (Senator, Secretary of State, etc. + US Navy veteran awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star with valor) - 1190
Bill Clinton: Georgetown, not ivy but elite (Governor, President) - 1030
Al Franken: Harvard (Comedian, Senator) - 1020
Also, David Hogg was admitted to Harvard with a 1270
Not necessarily a fan of any of the above but objectively they seem to know how to identify and "pick" exceptional talent
You have listed "exceptional" talent in only one area - Leadership/Politics. My kid will definitely not be as exceptional as those you have listed in this field but her chosen field is CS .. She has academic and extra-curricular credentials to justify that she has the "potential" to be exceptional in her chosen field. I guess that should be acknowledged and accepted in atleast one of the top schools in my opinion.
Is she white? If so - thousands of others are ahead of her. I am sorry. She will do well in life because she works hard. Best.
NP. Thousands ahead of her? A female from the number 1 stem HS in the country at the top of her class in GPA? I don’t think so
Your extremely high stats kid is a dime a dozen in the very top schools’ applicant pool.
Ugh. Not the "dime a dozen" poster again! I really hate that phrase, but there is a correlative point that is important. PPP, a top girl stats-wise from TJ should do well, but the stats are the base level for consideration, not the end all be all. If the stats are all she has, make sure you have plenty of target and safety schools (& I mean true targets and safeties). There is much to love about mid tier schools, and they may offer great merit to a high stats kid. If you want top-rated, name-prestige schools, she will have to stand out with national awards, great recs and school-specific fantastic essays if no other hooks. It can be done, but don't count on it. Even with these perks, have some targets and safeties in the mix. Also, consider what schools might be the best fit for her, and where she can shine. It might not be what you think. Mine did not apply to Harvard because she didn't like the competitive culture. She was fortunate enough to get into most of the tops schools she applied for, but she was prepared to go to one of the safeties (which was all she had for a long time) and found things to love about them. We are MCPS magnet.
The point is that for every high stat kid from tj in the top 25% of the class they are competing with at least 10+ equally high stat kids from throughout the US and the world, and of these the T5 or T10 will take maybe 1? The problem is that the T5s and T10s reserve between 10% and 20% of their class to academically dramatically underqualified students from the urm category
The supreme court review on the white/asian discrimination issue will be telling on which way the country will go on this topic, it could get worse, stay the same, or it could potentially get better for these high stat no hook white/asian kids depending on the result
There is so much wrong w/ this. Firstly, have you been some of these top schools? They are heavily white and Asian. They NEED diversity to enhance the education! Secondly, what makes you think that URM admits are "under"qualified? When did you become the arbiter of "qualifications?" This notion that there is a specific bar based on testing (which is NOT an indicator of intelligence) and grades is a fallacy. While those are factors, there are other factors too. I suggest reading Jeff Selingo's book on college admissions. There are not set qualifications. These are (in many cases) private institutions who are building a class. They do not have quotas per school or for URMs for that matter, but they do want diversity. What different perspective will student X bring to the college? That's why no school wants all CS kids who do robotics. I'm sure TJ has more than 1 kid get into top schools in most years (I know of at least 5 from our magnet admitted to one top school alone). Stop playing the victim drama. If you want to stand out and appeal to top schools, diversify your kid's interests/skills. Show the school that your kid really loves that school with fantastic and specific essays. Some kids shoot the Ivies and top 10 for status, and it shows in their essays. It's not just about race. If you are going to be upset by admissions priorities, get upset by large donors and legacy admits!
Signed, White parent whose kid was admitted to several Ivy/T10.
Diversity is woke bs
The issue is that large portions of whites and asians are specifically excluded from real opportunities for no other reason than the color of their skin in order to reserve slots for and only for urms regardless of qualifications and yes while the urm in theory may be more "qualified" in reality this is not the case
The ivies and other elite colleges are majority white or white jews + asians but that is because these kids have been selected from the "real" pool of applicants in competition with 20, 30, 50+ other candidates for each slot, once a cap is reached then the door is closed for these people regardless of what they bring to the table - this is obviously morally wrong from a humanistic perspective
In reality this is doing a massive dis-service to the urms because it treats them as handicapped people
Also, an ivy league grad from an extended family with many ivies, but the stories of these academically exceptional + strong ec kids not getting into T10s or T20s in favor of a system to allow a group of students in based on racist policies is a systemic problem
Your bias and bitterness have warped your ability to be rational. Stop the conspiracy theory crap. Stop assuming urms are "underqualified in practice." You don't know this. Realize that there are far more extremely high achieving kids than spaces at Ivy League institutions. The admits are highly "qualified." Stop separating people by race or assuming diversity is "bs." Get some diversity in your life. There is no "shut door" or hard cap. Read what I wrote earlier. Successful applications are about far more than base stats. Your perspective is exceedingly narrow. My kid is from the hardest demographic to earn admittance to Ivy league, and yet they were. In the most competitive year. The edge clearly didn't come from demographics, it came from outstanding essays, noteworthy awards, leadership, recommendations and great ECs. High stats got the foot in the door. That's all. but, go ahead and think that an URM is stealing your kid's spot. Heaven forbid they should try to actively earn it. And, completely disregard the large donors, legacies, networked and athletes. This is what tells me that you are the racist entity here.
Lol you are delusional and in a bubble
I'm not a urm but have a nephew that is a urm through and he is at a T3 now, as an uncle I was obviously elated that he was accepted but as an ivy grad was dumbfounded particularly since everybody in our extended family could compare the non-urm kids at ivies to this particularly nephew. I have a niece from the same family and now we are anticipating the same preferential treatment which for our particular family is great, but for the endless supply of kids from tj etc that are more typical of what we were used to as classmates at ivies honestly feel bad for them and an objective sense of inequity
By the way, when comparing academics, test scores, ecs, athletics, interpersonal skills, etc. we can see an enormous difference in our particular extended families case. The crazy thing is that he is a urm but from a wealthy white collar family but probably a top 25% introverted student with the only distinguishing characteristics being that he can check the urm box + happens to be 6'6" but unfortunately zero athletic abilities or desire, he is the type of kid people would want to succeed but we are still baffled how he got it, he is doing reasonably well so he is clearly capable of succeeding at the T3 academically but its obvious that others were objectively more deserving
You call me delusional and in a bubble because I presented rational data points, but then you counter with a singular anecdote and ranting? Talk about a bubble. You are clearly obsessed with your own limited perspective and not able to take on new information. Whatever, dude.
Your cope + seething post was idiotic lol
Let's make this simple for you to understand, student-athletes that are strong academically + D1 level athletes get first priority in admissions at the ivies. Others will get in, but after this group is admitted. This position is supported by the vast majority of those that donate and manage the ivies and will continue to be this way until the end of time.
You seem to be insulting the wrong person. You've got your threads mixed up. Not surprised. Hope all these insults and rants purge your bitter soul.
Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.
All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, admitted athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average applicant, that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".
The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity.
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.
I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.
in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.
You are living in a delusional bubble convinced of your own fake reality and your envy of successful student athletes is glaringly obvious lol.
The athletics are a core fundamental component of the ivy league culture, has been for centuries and will be as long as they exist. Not only do the alumni network support this but the large big ticket donors are laser focused on athletics as well. While you are correct that the spectator audience is comically small it has no bearing on the funding, financial support and priority provided to these programs - look at some of their athletic facilities and in many cases they are better than big time D1 sports program facilities paid for by donors that get their name on a shiny plaque on the facilities.
As an example, over 20% of Princeton's undergraduate student body are D1 athletes, Harvard is 10%, Dartmouth 21%, Yale 16%, compared to Ohio State 2.5%, Penn State 3.0%. In fact, in many ways what distinguishes the Ivy League from other good colleges are that athletics are valued to a greater degree and more ingrained into the student/alumni culture.
So you can tell yourself that you don't think the ivies should care about athletics and since you think that way you want to force your lie into a perceived reality.
The reality is that the ivies prioritize students that exhibit strong (maybe not top 1%) academics + D1 level athletic abilities to the extent that they literally get priority in admissions and often get "soft" acceptances their junior year of high school. They are looking for exceptionalism which comes in many forms to include proven accomplishments in both academics + athletics.
thank you for proving my point. You are simply saying athletic recruiting is ok because the schools want to do it. I agree that it's a value judgment the schools are making. So if you think this is ok then other hooks are equally acceptable if the school places that kind of value on it. Nothing is wrong because the school gets to choose.
Precisely, its a value judgement that the schools make not the parents or applicants. But in the case of the ivies the athletic component a tradition that started at inception and continues to this day.
Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.
All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, admitted athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average applicant, that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".
The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity.
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.
I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.
in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.
You are living in a delusional bubble convinced of your own fake reality and your envy of successful student athletes is glaringly obvious lol.
The athletics are a core fundamental component of the ivy league culture, has been for centuries and will be as long as they exist. Not only do the alumni network support this but the large big ticket donors are laser focused on athletics as well. While you are correct that the spectator audience is comically small it has no bearing on the funding, financial support and priority provided to these programs - look at some of their athletic facilities and in many cases they are better than big time D1 sports program facilities paid for by donors that get their name on a shiny plaque on the facilities.
As an example, over 20% of Princeton's undergraduate student body are D1 athletes, Harvard is 10%, Dartmouth 21%, Yale 16%, compared to Ohio State 2.5%, Penn State 3.0%. In fact, in many ways what distinguishes the Ivy League from other good colleges are that athletics are valued to a greater degree and more ingrained into the student/alumni culture.
So you can tell yourself that you don't think the ivies should care about athletics and since you think that way you want to force your lie into a perceived reality.
The reality is that the ivies prioritize students that exhibit strong (maybe not top 1%) academics + D1 level athletic abilities to the extent that they literally get priority in admissions and often get "soft" acceptances their junior year of high school. They are looking for exceptionalism which comes in many forms to include proven accomplishments in both academics + athletics.
thank you for proving my point. You are simply saying athletic recruiting is ok because the schools want to do it. I agree that it's a value judgment the schools are making. So if you think this is ok then other hooks are equally acceptable if the school places that kind of value on it. Nothing is wrong because the school gets to choose.
Precisely, its a value judgement that the schools make not the parents or applicants. But in the case of the ivies the athletic component a tradition that started at inception and continues to this day.
Harvard has been around since 1636. Harvard started playing football in 1874. Let’s take it down a notch, Sparky.
Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.
All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, admitted athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average applicant, that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".
The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity.
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.
I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.
in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.
You are living in a delusional bubble convinced of your own fake reality and your envy of successful student athletes is glaringly obvious lol.
The athletics are a core fundamental component of the ivy league culture, has been for centuries and will be as long as they exist. Not only do the alumni network support this but the large big ticket donors are laser focused on athletics as well. While you are correct that the spectator audience is comically small it has no bearing on the funding, financial support and priority provided to these programs - look at some of their athletic facilities and in many cases they are better than big time D1 sports program facilities paid for by donors that get their name on a shiny plaque on the facilities.
As an example, over 20% of Princeton's undergraduate student body are D1 athletes, Harvard is 10%, Dartmouth 21%, Yale 16%, compared to Ohio State 2.5%, Penn State 3.0%. In fact, in many ways what distinguishes the Ivy League from other good colleges are that athletics are valued to a greater degree and more ingrained into the student/alumni culture.
So you can tell yourself that you don't think the ivies should care about athletics and since you think that way you want to force your lie into a perceived reality.
The reality is that the ivies prioritize students that exhibit strong (maybe not top 1%) academics + D1 level athletic abilities to the extent that they literally get priority in admissions and often get "soft" acceptances their junior year of high school. They are looking for exceptionalism which comes in many forms to include proven accomplishments in both academics + athletics.
thank you for proving my point. You are simply saying athletic recruiting is ok because the schools want to do it. I agree that it's a value judgment the schools are making. So if you think this is ok then other hooks are equally acceptable if the school places that kind of value on it. Nothing is wrong because the school gets to choose.
Precisely, its a value judgement that the schools make not the parents or applicants. But in the case of the ivies the athletic component a tradition that started at inception and continues to this day.
Harvard has been around since 1636. Harvard started playing football in 1874. Let’s take it down a notch, Sparky.
Ok lets do that and go back to what Harvard was in the period between 1636 to 1874, an institution of higher learning to educate and develop white only gentlemen leaders of the Christian faith.
Btw, during this period, the definition of "white" only includes those of pure English protestant backgrounds. Other faux whites are excluded, specifically the Irish, but obviously others though we can make exceptions if a Scot or German from the Saxon or the Rhineland region if they act white (not Bavaria they are brown). Obviously, nordics are excluded because they are closer to asians than to whites by the founders standards. French, Italians, Spaniards are effectively africans.
Anonymous wrote:DD with GPA 4.52 (Junior year), 1580 SAT, all 5s in all her 8 APs from TJ with excellent ECs for CS, volunteering/community service and an internship did not get into any of the Ivies and waitlisted at CMU. Major - CS. Obviously we are disappointed. College admissions seems like a lottery.
Its not as much of a lottery as some try to convinces themselves
The ivies are seeking exceptionalism which could include but not necessarily be restricted to GPA and have distinguished themselves their multi-centuries consistent abilities to identify and select exceptional individuals
So the question is who should Harvard take, your kid who scored a 1580 or Al Gore who scored 1355. Your kid could certainly be more talented with better future success than Al Gore, but obviously Gore was a very successful admit by any measure. Other SAT scores:
George Bush: Yale (Governor, President + Veteran) - 1200
John Kerry: Yale (Senator, Secretary of State, etc. + US Navy veteran awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star with valor) - 1190
Bill Clinton: Georgetown, not ivy but elite (Governor, President) - 1030
Al Franken: Harvard (Comedian, Senator) - 1020
Also, David Hogg was admitted to Harvard with a 1270
Not necessarily a fan of any of the above but objectively they seem to know how to identify and "pick" exceptional talent
You have listed "exceptional" talent in only one area - Leadership/Politics. My kid will definitely not be as exceptional as those you have listed in this field but her chosen field is CS .. She has academic and extra-curricular credentials to justify that she has the "potential" to be exceptional in her chosen field. I guess that should be acknowledged and accepted in atleast one of the top schools in my opinion.
Is she white? If so - thousands of others are ahead of her. I am sorry. She will do well in life because she works hard. Best.
NP. Thousands ahead of her? A female from the number 1 stem HS in the country at the top of her class in GPA? I don’t think so
Your extremely high stats kid is a dime a dozen in the very top schools’ applicant pool.
Ugh. Not the "dime a dozen" poster again! I really hate that phrase, but there is a correlative point that is important. PPP, a top girl stats-wise from TJ should do well, but the stats are the base level for consideration, not the end all be all. If the stats are all she has, make sure you have plenty of target and safety schools (& I mean true targets and safeties). There is much to love about mid tier schools, and they may offer great merit to a high stats kid. If you want top-rated, name-prestige schools, she will have to stand out with national awards, great recs and school-specific fantastic essays if no other hooks. It can be done, but don't count on it. Even with these perks, have some targets and safeties in the mix. Also, consider what schools might be the best fit for her, and where she can shine. It might not be what you think. Mine did not apply to Harvard because she didn't like the competitive culture. She was fortunate enough to get into most of the tops schools she applied for, but she was prepared to go to one of the safeties (which was all she had for a long time) and found things to love about them. We are MCPS magnet.
The point is that for every high stat kid from tj in the top 25% of the class they are competing with at least 10+ equally high stat kids from throughout the US and the world, and of these the T5 or T10 will take maybe 1? The problem is that the T5s and T10s reserve between 10% and 20% of their class to academically dramatically underqualified students from the urm category
The supreme court review on the white/asian discrimination issue will be telling on which way the country will go on this topic, it could get worse, stay the same, or it could potentially get better for these high stat no hook white/asian kids depending on the result
There is so much wrong w/ this. Firstly, have you been some of these top schools? They are heavily white and Asian. They NEED diversity to enhance the education! Secondly, what makes you think that URM admits are "under"qualified? When did you become the arbiter of "qualifications?" This notion that there is a specific bar based on testing (which is NOT an indicator of intelligence) and grades is a fallacy. While those are factors, there are other factors too. I suggest reading Jeff Selingo's book on college admissions. There are not set qualifications. These are (in many cases) private institutions who are building a class. They do not have quotas per school or for URMs for that matter, but they do want diversity. What different perspective will student X bring to the college? That's why no school wants all CS kids who do robotics. I'm sure TJ has more than 1 kid get into top schools in most years (I know of at least 5 from our magnet admitted to one top school alone). Stop playing the victim drama. If you want to stand out and appeal to top schools, diversify your kid's interests/skills. Show the school that your kid really loves that school with fantastic and specific essays. Some kids shoot the Ivies and top 10 for status, and it shows in their essays. It's not just about race. If you are going to be upset by admissions priorities, get upset by large donors and legacy admits!
Signed, White parent whose kid was admitted to several Ivy/T10.
No, they don't.
The humble brag signature is so nauseating. As is your condescending tone.
Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.
All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, admitted athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average applicant, that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".
The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity.
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.
I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.
in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.
You are living in a delusional bubble convinced of your own fake reality and your envy of successful student athletes is glaringly obvious lol.
The athletics are a core fundamental component of the ivy league culture, has been for centuries and will be as long as they exist. Not only do the alumni network support this but the large big ticket donors are laser focused on athletics as well. While you are correct that the spectator audience is comically small it has no bearing on the funding, financial support and priority provided to these programs - look at some of their athletic facilities and in many cases they are better than big time D1 sports program facilities paid for by donors that get their name on a shiny plaque on the facilities.
As an example, over 20% of Princeton's undergraduate student body are D1 athletes, Harvard is 10%, Dartmouth 21%, Yale 16%, compared to Ohio State 2.5%, Penn State 3.0%. In fact, in many ways what distinguishes the Ivy League from other good colleges are that athletics are valued to a greater degree and more ingrained into the student/alumni culture.
So you can tell yourself that you don't think the ivies should care about athletics and since you think that way you want to force your lie into a perceived reality.
The reality is that the ivies prioritize students that exhibit strong (maybe not top 1%) academics + D1 level athletic abilities to the extent that they literally get priority in admissions and often get "soft" acceptances their junior year of high school. They are looking for exceptionalism which comes in many forms to include proven accomplishments in both academics + athletics.
thank you for proving my point. You are simply saying athletic recruiting is ok because the schools want to do it. I agree that it's a value judgment the schools are making. So if you think this is ok then other hooks are equally acceptable if the school places that kind of value on it. Nothing is wrong because the school gets to choose.
Precisely, its a value judgement that the schools make not the parents or applicants. But in the case of the ivies the athletic component a tradition that started at inception and continues to this day.
Harvard has been around since 1636. Harvard started playing football in 1874. Let’s take it down a notch, Sparky.
Ok lets do that and go back to what Harvard was in the period between 1636 to 1874, an institution of higher learning to educate and develop white only gentlemen leaders of the Christian faith.
Btw, during this period, the definition of "white" only includes those of pure English protestant backgrounds. Other faux whites are excluded, specifically the Irish, but obviously others though we can make exceptions if a Scot or German from the Saxon or the Rhineland region if they act white (not Bavaria they are brown). Obviously, nordics are excluded because they are closer to asians than to whites by the founders standards. French, Italians, Spaniards are effectively africans.
Is that better? lol
Let me get this straight. You made an argument based on faulty historical precedent. Your lack of understanding of the facts is noted. You think the appropriate rejoinder is to double down on it. Pointing out your historical error isn’t validating your idiotic argument. It was just to show you were talking out of your ass.
Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.
All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, admitted athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average applicant, that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".
The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity.
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.
I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.
in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.
You are living in a delusional bubble convinced of your own fake reality and your envy of successful student athletes is glaringly obvious lol.
The athletics are a core fundamental component of the ivy league culture, has been for centuries and will be as long as they exist. Not only do the alumni network support this but the large big ticket donors are laser focused on athletics as well. While you are correct that the spectator audience is comically small it has no bearing on the funding, financial support and priority provided to these programs - look at some of their athletic facilities and in many cases they are better than big time D1 sports program facilities paid for by donors that get their name on a shiny plaque on the facilities.
As an example, over 20% of Princeton's undergraduate student body are D1 athletes, Harvard is 10%, Dartmouth 21%, Yale 16%, compared to Ohio State 2.5%, Penn State 3.0%. In fact, in many ways what distinguishes the Ivy League from other good colleges are that athletics are valued to a greater degree and more ingrained into the student/alumni culture.
So you can tell yourself that you don't think the ivies should care about athletics and since you think that way you want to force your lie into a perceived reality.
The reality is that the ivies prioritize students that exhibit strong (maybe not top 1%) academics + D1 level athletic abilities to the extent that they literally get priority in admissions and often get "soft" acceptances their junior year of high school. They are looking for exceptionalism which comes in many forms to include proven accomplishments in both academics + athletics.
thank you for proving my point. You are simply saying athletic recruiting is ok because the schools want to do it. I agree that it's a value judgment the schools are making. So if you think this is ok then other hooks are equally acceptable if the school places that kind of value on it. Nothing is wrong because the school gets to choose.
Precisely, its a value judgement that the schools make not the parents or applicants. But in the case of the ivies the athletic component a tradition that started at inception and continues to this day.
Harvard has been around since 1636. Harvard started playing football in 1874. Let’s take it down a notch, Sparky.
Ok lets do that and go back to what Harvard was in the period between 1636 to 1874, an institution of higher learning to educate and develop white only gentlemen leaders of the Christian faith.
Btw, during this period, the definition of "white" only includes those of pure English protestant backgrounds. Other faux whites are excluded, specifically the Irish, but obviously others though we can make exceptions if a Scot or German from the Saxon or the Rhineland region if they act white (not Bavaria they are brown). Obviously, nordics are excluded because they are closer to asians than to whites by the founders standards. French, Italians, Spaniards are effectively africans.
Is that better? lol
Let me get this straight. You made an argument based on faulty historical precedent. Your lack of understanding of the facts is noted. You think the appropriate rejoinder is to double down on it. Pointing out your historical error isn’t validating your idiotic argument. It was just to show you were talking out of your ass.
Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.
All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, admitted athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average applicant, that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".
The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity.
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.
I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.
in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.
You are living in a delusional bubble convinced of your own fake reality and your envy of successful student athletes is glaringly obvious lol.
The athletics are a core fundamental component of the ivy league culture, has been for centuries and will be as long as they exist. Not only do the alumni network support this but the large big ticket donors are laser focused on athletics as well. While you are correct that the spectator audience is comically small it has no bearing on the funding, financial support and priority provided to these programs - look at some of their athletic facilities and in many cases they are better than big time D1 sports program facilities paid for by donors that get their name on a shiny plaque on the facilities.
As an example, over 20% of Princeton's undergraduate student body are D1 athletes, Harvard is 10%, Dartmouth 21%, Yale 16%, compared to Ohio State 2.5%, Penn State 3.0%. In fact, in many ways what distinguishes the Ivy League from other good colleges are that athletics are valued to a greater degree and more ingrained into the student/alumni culture.
So you can tell yourself that you don't think the ivies should care about athletics and since you think that way you want to force your lie into a perceived reality.
The reality is that the ivies prioritize students that exhibit strong (maybe not top 1%) academics + D1 level athletic abilities to the extent that they literally get priority in admissions and often get "soft" acceptances their junior year of high school. They are looking for exceptionalism which comes in many forms to include proven accomplishments in both academics + athletics.
thank you for proving my point. You are simply saying athletic recruiting is ok because the schools want to do it. I agree that it's a value judgment the schools are making. So if you think this is ok then other hooks are equally acceptable if the school places that kind of value on it. Nothing is wrong because the school gets to choose.
Precisely, its a value judgement that the schools make not the parents or applicants. But in the case of the ivies the athletic component a tradition that started at inception and continues to this day.
Harvard has been around since 1636. Harvard started playing football in 1874. Let’s take it down a notch, Sparky.
Ok lets do that and go back to what Harvard was in the period between 1636 to 1874, an institution of higher learning to educate and develop white only gentlemen leaders of the Christian faith.
Btw, during this period, the definition of "white" only includes those of pure English protestant backgrounds. Other faux whites are excluded, specifically the Irish, but obviously others though we can make exceptions if a Scot or German from the Saxon or the Rhineland region if they act white (not Bavaria they are brown). Obviously, nordics are excluded because they are closer to asians than to whites by the founders standards. French, Italians, Spaniards are effectively africans.
Is that better? lol
Let me get this straight. You made an argument based on faulty historical precedent. Your lack of understanding of the facts is noted. You think the appropriate rejoinder is to double down on it. Pointing out your historical error isn’t validating your idiotic argument. It was just to show you were talking out of your ass.
The Ivy League was founded specifically as an athletic league
Try as you may you cannot rewrite history to fit your agenda
Anonymous wrote:OP be prepared for your 4.5 public school kid to end up at the same university as a 2.5 public school kid.
OP. If you read the original post you will know that my kid doesn’t have 4.5 so I assume you have no interest or input in the original question. Nevertheless good for the 2.5 public school kid following my public school kid. S/he will likely end up at a very good school.
Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.
All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, admitted athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average applicant, that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".
The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity.
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.
I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.
in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.
You are living in a delusional bubble convinced of your own fake reality and your envy of successful student athletes is glaringly obvious lol.
The athletics are a core fundamental component of the ivy league culture, has been for centuries and will be as long as they exist. Not only do the alumni network support this but the large big ticket donors are laser focused on athletics as well. While you are correct that the spectator audience is comically small it has no bearing on the funding, financial support and priority provided to these programs - look at some of their athletic facilities and in many cases they are better than big time D1 sports program facilities paid for by donors that get their name on a shiny plaque on the facilities.
As an example, over 20% of Princeton's undergraduate student body are D1 athletes, Harvard is 10%, Dartmouth 21%, Yale 16%, compared to Ohio State 2.5%, Penn State 3.0%. In fact, in many ways what distinguishes the Ivy League from other good colleges are that athletics are valued to a greater degree and more ingrained into the student/alumni culture.
So you can tell yourself that you don't think the ivies should care about athletics and since you think that way you want to force your lie into a perceived reality.
The reality is that the ivies prioritize students that exhibit strong (maybe not top 1%) academics + D1 level athletic abilities to the extent that they literally get priority in admissions and often get "soft" acceptances their junior year of high school. They are looking for exceptionalism which comes in many forms to include proven accomplishments in both academics + athletics.
thank you for proving my point. You are simply saying athletic recruiting is ok because the schools want to do it. I agree that it's a value judgment the schools are making. So if you think this is ok then other hooks are equally acceptable if the school places that kind of value on it. Nothing is wrong because the school gets to choose.
Precisely, its a value judgement that the schools make not the parents or applicants. But in the case of the ivies the athletic component a tradition that started at inception and continues to this day.
Harvard has been around since 1636. Harvard started playing football in 1874. Let’s take it down a notch, Sparky.
Ok lets do that and go back to what Harvard was in the period between 1636 to 1874, an institution of higher learning to educate and develop white only gentlemen leaders of the Christian faith.
Btw, during this period, the definition of "white" only includes those of pure English protestant backgrounds. Other faux whites are excluded, specifically the Irish, but obviously others though we can make exceptions if a Scot or German from the Saxon or the Rhineland region if they act white (not Bavaria they are brown). Obviously, nordics are excluded because they are closer to asians than to whites by the founders standards. French, Italians, Spaniards are effectively africans.
Is that better? lol
Let me get this straight. You made an argument based on faulty historical precedent. Your lack of understanding of the facts is noted. You think the appropriate rejoinder is to double down on it. Pointing out your historical error isn’t validating your idiotic argument. It was just to show you were talking out of your ass.
The Ivy League was founded specifically as an athletic league
Try as you may you cannot rewrite history to fit your agenda
Try as you may you cannot form even a basic understanding of the world.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}