What has surprised you - as your kid comes to the end of this process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

I’m a PP. I have no issue with a 3.9(high rigor), 1500, good athlete (i hope with some leadership) getting into Williams, etc.

I do have a problem with 3.5 (low rigor), TO athlete with no other activities getting into T20 schools.

Athletes are great, but no one else with one activity and those stats is getting into T20.

Fair point; but also pertinent is that for most of the T20 the overall numbers overwhelm the number of athletic admits so they really don't change any individuals chances significantly though they might be grating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised by the actual definition of first generation (which varies from school to school). It can mean first generation to attend college in this country (e.g. mom went to the Sorbonne or Oxford) and only refers to one parent. So, you can have dad be a Harvard grad who married the Sorbonne grad and their child/student is considered first gen. Pretty wild.

Not the case tho at every T20. That definition is only true at a few places.

[Anonymous]

Definition of “first gen” needs to be tightened. There are many families where both parents might have graduate/professional degrees from their counties-of-origin and can give their kids advantage/opportunity (I’m the offspring of two college-educated immigrant parents before anyone attacks this post as being anti-immigrant).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

I’m a PP. I have no issue with a 3.9(high rigor), 1500, good athlete (i hope with some leadership) getting into Williams, etc.

I do have a problem with 3.5 (low rigor), TO athlete with no other activities getting into T20 schools.

Athletes are great, but no one else with one activity and those stats is getting into T20.

Are any ppl actually getting in with a 3.5 TO to Williams? Even athletes?

The athletes I know need to get 1480 min and have strong grades. No other ECs tho

[Anonymous]

Senior year feels like forever and freshman year of college goes by so fast!! It’s a year of nonstop change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

I’m a PP. I have no issue with a 3.9(high rigor), 1500, good athlete (i hope with some leadership) getting into Williams, etc.

I do have a problem with 3.5 (low rigor), TO athlete with no other activities getting into T20 schools.

Athletes are great, but no one else with one activity and those stats is getting into T20.

Just to be clear, you are jealous of a kid that spent thousands of hours more than your kid improving his/her athletic craft and is admitted to those schools?

Let me tell you. I have been a recruiter for the 2 of the top 5 IBs and the top MC group over the last 20 years. In all cases we would ALWAYS take the Athlete from the top schools, even if their GPA was a 3.0 than the non athlete with a 4.0. Very simple. You can teach that drive….once you remove the athletics out of the way, they have shown to be on avg, much better workers than the non-athletes….complain all you want. That is a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

You don’t seem to know what per capita means and you are wrong, even in absolute numbers terms.
For example, MIT: 16% athletes, 729 total. Williams: 745 athletes. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

As for where this is going in the future, it is inevitable that the ridiculous % of athletes numbers (these would be at Amherst, Williams, and W&L on your list — the only small schools) will go down because these schools can’t sustain a dual focus on first-gen and athletes. That’s over 50% of the class right there. Something will have to give. But, yes, this may be 20-30 years down the road.

During that time, though, the top 20% of students academically at Amherst and Williams will decline; this is already perceptibly happening. Top unhooked kids — the academic superstars that Williams and Amherst still got a generation ago — now know that applying ED to Amherst or Williams is a complete waste. They apply in the early rounds to an Ivy and/or Chicago or JHU (on your list, but only 10% of undergrads are athletes, not 35-40%). By the time Williams gets to them in the RD round, these top academic kids are already gone…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

You don’t seem to know what per capita means and you are wrong, even in absolute numbers terms.
For example, MIT: 16% athletes, 729 total. Williams: 745 athletes. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

As for where this is going in the future, it is inevitable that the ridiculous % of athletes numbers (these would be at Amherst, Williams, and W&L on your list — the only small schools) will go down because these schools can’t sustain a dual focus on first-gen and athletes. That’s over 50% of the class right there. Something will have to give. But, yes, this may be 20-30 years down the road.

During that time, though, the top 20% of students academically at Amherst and Williams will decline; this is already perceptibly happening. Top unhooked kids — the academic superstars that Williams and Amherst still got a generation ago — now know that applying ED to Amherst or Williams is a complete waste. They apply in the early rounds to an Ivy and/or Chicago or JHU (on your list, but only 10% of undergrads are athletes, not 35-40%). By the time Williams gets to them in the RD round, these top academic kids are already gone…

Those kids were going to Chicago/ivies anyway. If you’re interested in an lac, you’ll go to one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

I’m a PP. I have no issue with a 3.9(high rigor), 1500, good athlete (i hope with some leadership) getting into Williams, etc.

I do have a problem with 3.5 (low rigor), TO athlete with no other activities getting into T20 schools.

Athletes are great, but no one else with one activity and those stats is getting into T20.

Just to be clear, you are jealous of a kid that spent thousands of hours more than your kid improving his/her athletic craft and is admitted to those schools?

Let me tell you. I have been a recruiter for the 2 of the top 5 IBs and the top MC group over the last 20 years. In all cases we would ALWAYS take the Athlete from the top schools, even if their GPA was a 3.0 than the non athlete with a 4.0. Very simple. You can teach that drive….once you remove the athletics out of the way, they have shown to be on avg, much better workers than the non-athletes….complain all you want. That is a fact.

This is yet another reason why top unhooked kids need to avoid SLACs with 30-40% athletes. Go to Chicago…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

You don’t seem to know what per capita means and you are wrong, even in absolute numbers terms.
For example, MIT: 16% athletes, 729 total. Williams: 745 athletes. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

As for where this is going in the future, it is inevitable that the ridiculous % of athletes numbers (these would be at Amherst, Williams, and W&L on your list — the only small schools) will go down because these schools can’t sustain a dual focus on first-gen and athletes. That’s over 50% of the class right there. Something will have to give. But, yes, this may be 20-30 years down the road.

During that time, though, the top 20% of students academically at Amherst and Williams will decline; this is already perceptibly happening. Top unhooked kids — the academic superstars that Williams and Amherst still got a generation ago — now know that applying ED to Amherst or Williams is a complete waste. They apply in the early rounds to an Ivy and/or Chicago or JHU (on your list, but only 10% of undergrads are athletes, not 35-40%). By the time Williams gets to them in the RD round, these top academic kids are already gone…

Those kids were going to Chicago/ivies anyway. If you’re interested in a lac, you’ll go to one.

I know several kids who would have applied ED to Williams or Amherst but did not because applying ED is a marked disadvantage there. They instead applied early to schools where ED is an advantage…like Chicago. This is really not a difficult concept to understand….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Definition of “first gen” needs to be tightened. There are many families where both parents might have graduate/professional degrees from their counties-of-origin and can give their kids advantage/opportunity (I’m the offspring of two college-educated immigrant parents before anyone attacks this post as being anti-immigrant).

This. I know a kid whose parents have degrees from the UK and put down first gen.
This family is extremely wealthy and the kid got into all 3 T20 schools they applied to. GPA was strong but not amazing and SAT was sub 1450. No other hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Learned that unless your kid is a recruited athlete, their playing varsity all throughout high school and being named as captain for multiple seasons is not going to make a difference in any way from any other EC.

True.

Play for enjoyment, not a college EC edge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senior year feels like forever and freshman year of college goes by so fast!! It’s a year of nonstop change.

This rings true!

[Anonymous]

Surprised that some things actually came through. Very high stats unhooked kid. Very well rounded with sports and Ecs and rank 1/600 but nothing mesmerizing.
He didn’t even apply to ivies. But got several t15-t25 early. Now wondering if should have tried for one of those.
Anyway, dream big. Don’t leave anything untried. Be an optimist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That it's really easy to get into college if you're a good student with pretty good scores but not top scores (in this case a 1400). My ds got in everywhere he applied but one college as a normal kid who picked easier APs and enjoyed his life without stress. I was so worried and thought it would be a lot harder than it was.

Where'd he get in?