Princeton REA Thursday?

[Anonymous]

At least 4 in to Princeton from Dalton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton states that they use legacy status as a tiebreaker only, and that is affected something like 21 applications last year. It isn’t the large boost it is at some schools.

According to an essay by Princeton professor Shamus Khan published in The New York Times in July, the University accepted around 30% of applicants with a legacy connection in 2018, compared to 5% of applicants overall. I suppose you could argue that the legacy applicants are far more superior due to some genetic advantage and socio-economic privilege that comes from having wealthy Princetonian parents, but an admit rate 6x higher seems more than simply a "tiebreaker."

The Princetonian sometimes publishes academic surveys of its graduating class. Legacies have significantly higher stats than the non legacy students. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised they get accepted at higher rates even without a legacy preference. Also, 2018 is well before SFFA and before public scrutiny and criticism of legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If SCEA is so bad for a certain profile of kid (non hook), why do all the high school counselors seem to still insist the odds are better?

I think because the odds are never great, and a deferral seems to slightly raise your chances in rd.

Sure, but there is often a very high opportunity cost for unhooked students from the burbs applying SCEA to HYPS. Of course a handful of random unhooked students get in, but these students, no matter how brilliant, are not a priority for these schools. They want the major hooks - athlete, rich, prominent family, legacy, faculty kids. And they want first generation, low income, and rural. Not a lot of spots available otherwise.

And in the meantime, they have given up their chance to apply ED to Penn, Duke, Brown, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Rice, Cornell, Northwestern, Chicago, and Johns Hopkins. And Regular Decision is exceptionally difficult at most of these schools. I think the RD acceptance rate at Duke and Vandy was about 3 percent last year.

For MC and UMC students without hooks, I think you really need to love Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford to apply SCEA. Like, you can't imagine yourself anywhere else. But the risk is incredibly high. The RD round is carnage for a lot of great students.

I think I agree with you. We have a Princeton legacy with a tippy top SAT score, top grades and rigor, and good extracurriculars, and even we are not sure whether to take this chance or not next year, given that legacy does not appear to be a strong advantage these days from what we were told. DC loves Princeton but also almost equally loves one of the other schools on your list that gives a clear advantage to ED applicants, so it may just not be worth the risk and hassle to try for SCEA.

Of course being a legacy is still a huge advantage--one research paper says it gives the student 4x greater chance of being admitted than a comparable applicant. But when the selectivity is 3% of applicants, even 4x greater chance of being admitted doesn't mean your kid will get in.

That was an old research paper. Not at all current.

A 2023 research paper is not "old." https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31492/w31492.pdf
Feel free to cite the newer research you know of on legacy application preferences.

The Chetty et al. paper may not be old, but the data they use is not current (1998-2015). It's a great paper, but nobody should be assuming that the trends from that period are all the same today. There is a dearth of contemporary data, so we can only guess, but the the consensus is that legacy is no longer as big of an advantage as it once was, especially due to all the criticism that the schools receive for favoring legacy, owing in part to this very paper.

Will you cite newer research that contradicts what the Chetty paper found? Or are you just unilaterally deciding that its findings are invalid because it's "old."

I am not a researcher and I don't have access to current data, but you have to admit that 1998-2015 data is old in the admissions landscape. Feel free to trust the sources you prefer, but for myself I would prefer to listen to what the admissions offices themselves are saying currently, as well as what college admissions officers are saying based on their own students' results in recent years. Our school's college admissions officers have told us that they do not think legacy will significantly weight the scales for our high stats kid. In the past couple of years, being a first gen student weighs significantly more than legacy.

That FGLI weighs more than legacy preference does not mean that legacy preference doesn't exist. And with a 3% admit rate, every preference matters.

Not really arguing that legacy preference does not exist, and I am sure it is a nice tie breaker as someone pointed out. It just isn't the huge factor you're claiming it is. Certainly not worth the risk of losing an ED advantage my kid would have at another T10 they love as much, and where their perfect stats might carry more weight in an ED round.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least 4 in to Princeton from Dalton

Holy moly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least 4 in to Princeton from Dalton

Holy moly

Legacy duh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least 4 in to Princeton from Dalton

Holy moly

Legacy duh

More like the fact that Dalton is already ridiculously selective itself.

[Anonymous]

St Albans had 5 in last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least 4 in to Princeton from Dalton

Holy moly

Legacy duh

More like the fact that Dalton is already ridiculously selective itself.

And has a bunch of ultrawealthy/bold face named parents who could help the applicants fall into the "donor admit" category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think because the odds are never great, and a deferral seems to slightly raise your chances in rd.

FWIW, our DCs college counselor said that deferred kids go to the bottom of the pile in RD because the AOs are focused on reading all of the RD applications. With the increases in applications, there is a chance the AOs simply won't get back to looking at the applications of the deferred kids. Anything a student can do to get their application reread is helpful.

Don’t think this is true. Know three Princeton deferrals who then got in RD in the last two years. They were the only admits from their schools, I think. Counselor said deferred get in at a slightly higher rate than regular rd

+1 It is completely garbage for a college counselor to say that a deferred SCEA applicant won't get admitted. Most SCEA applicants are deferred, and yes some get in RD. Just because you paid someone $10K to be a college counselor, doesn't mean that know what they're doing.

If you have a bright kid, I think it's an incredibly dumb strategy to rely on a SCEA deferral and hope and pray.

These are smart and talented students. They have good options regardless. Betting everything on an early admission to Princeton is reflective of a gambling problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If SCEA is so bad for a certain profile of kid (non hook), why do all the high school counselors seem to still insist the odds are better?

I think because the odds are never great, and a deferral seems to slightly raise your chances in rd.

Sure, but there is often a very high opportunity cost for unhooked students from the burbs applying SCEA to HYPS. Of course a handful of random unhooked students get in, but these students, no matter how brilliant, are not a priority for these schools. They want the major hooks - athlete, rich, prominent family, legacy, faculty kids. And they want first generation, low income, and rural. Not a lot of spots available otherwise.

And in the meantime, they have given up their chance to apply ED to Penn, Duke, Brown, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Rice, Cornell, Northwestern, Chicago, and Johns Hopkins. And Regular Decision is exceptionally difficult at most of these schools. I think the RD acceptance rate at Duke and Vandy was about 3 percent last year.

For MC and UMC students without hooks, I think you really need to love Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford to apply SCEA. Like, you can't imagine yourself anywhere else. But the risk is incredibly high. The RD round is carnage for a lot of great students.

I think I agree with you. We have a Princeton legacy with a tippy top SAT score, top grades and rigor, and good extracurriculars, and even we are not sure whether to take this chance or not next year, given that legacy does not appear to be a strong advantage these days from what we were told. DC loves Princeton but also almost equally loves one of the other schools on your list that gives a clear advantage to ED applicants, so it may just not be worth the risk and hassle to try for SCEA.

My super high achieving P'ton legacy was deferred last night and it feels crummy. But despite my efforts to interest dc in other schools, this was dc's clear preference by a mile and I feel like in the end it's not my decision since I won't have to attend. If your child likes another, less-selective school equally well, of course that makes sense. But also - people here are making it sound like ED to Brown, Penn, Columbia is easily achievable, and the data from our school shows differently. Lots of qualified, even standout kids are rejected in ED too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think because the odds are never great, and a deferral seems to slightly raise your chances in rd.

FWIW, our DCs college counselor said that deferred kids go to the bottom of the pile in RD because the AOs are focused on reading all of the RD applications. With the increases in applications, there is a chance the AOs simply won't get back to looking at the applications of the deferred kids. Anything a student can do to get their application reread is helpful.

Don’t think this is true. Know three Princeton deferrals who then got in RD in the last two years. They were the only admits from their schools, I think. Counselor said deferred get in at a slightly higher rate than regular rd

+1 It is completely garbage for a college counselor to say that a deferred SCEA applicant won't get admitted. Most SCEA applicants are deferred, and yes some get in RD. Just because you paid someone $10K to be a college counselor, doesn't mean that know what they're doing.

If you have a bright kid, I think it's an incredibly dumb strategy to rely on a SCEA deferral and hope and pray.

These are smart and talented students. They have good options regardless. Betting everything on an early admission to Princeton is reflective of a gambling problem.

Who is relying on an SCEA deferral? Are you saying that the applicant is only applying to a single school? Very few students do that. Someone posted that their college counselor said that all deferred SCEA applicants are put to the bottom of the pile and won't get in RD. That's simply untrue, and yes, it's garbage advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If SCEA is so bad for a certain profile of kid (non hook), why do all the high school counselors seem to still insist the odds are better?

I think because the odds are never great, and a deferral seems to slightly raise your chances in rd.

Sure, but there is often a very high opportunity cost for unhooked students from the burbs applying SCEA to HYPS. Of course a handful of random unhooked students get in, but these students, no matter how brilliant, are not a priority for these schools. They want the major hooks - athlete, rich, prominent family, legacy, faculty kids. And they want first generation, low income, and rural. Not a lot of spots available otherwise.

And in the meantime, they have given up their chance to apply ED to Penn, Duke, Brown, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Rice, Cornell, Northwestern, Chicago, and Johns Hopkins. And Regular Decision is exceptionally difficult at most of these schools. I think the RD acceptance rate at Duke and Vandy was about 3 percent last year.

For MC and UMC students without hooks, I think you really need to love Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford to apply SCEA. Like, you can't imagine yourself anywhere else. But the risk is incredibly high. The RD round is carnage for a lot of great students.

I think I agree with you. We have a Princeton legacy with a tippy top SAT score, top grades and rigor, and good extracurriculars, and even we are not sure whether to take this chance or not next year, given that legacy does not appear to be a strong advantage these days from what we were told. DC loves Princeton but also almost equally loves one of the other schools on your list that gives a clear advantage to ED applicants, so it may just not be worth the risk and hassle to try for SCEA.

My super high achieving P'ton legacy was deferred last night and it feels crummy. But despite my efforts to interest dc in other schools, this was dc's clear preference by a mile and I feel like in the end it's not my decision since I won't have to attend. If your child likes another, less-selective school equally well, of course that makes sense. But also - people here are making it sound like ED to Brown, Penn, Columbia is easily achievable, and the data from our school shows differently. Lots of qualified, even standout kids are rejected in ED too.

Princeton has a 3.4% admit rate. Columbia has a 4% admit rate. Penn and Brown are at around 5.5%. These are low odds everywhere--even for superwonderful, talented kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If SCEA is so bad for a certain profile of kid (non hook), why do all the high school counselors seem to still insist the odds are better?

I think because the odds are never great, and a deferral seems to slightly raise your chances in rd.

Sure, but there is often a very high opportunity cost for unhooked students from the burbs applying SCEA to HYPS. Of course a handful of random unhooked students get in, but these students, no matter how brilliant, are not a priority for these schools. They want the major hooks - athlete, rich, prominent family, legacy, faculty kids. And they want first generation, low income, and rural. Not a lot of spots available otherwise.

And in the meantime, they have given up their chance to apply ED to Penn, Duke, Brown, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Rice, Cornell, Northwestern, Chicago, and Johns Hopkins. And Regular Decision is exceptionally difficult at most of these schools. I think the RD acceptance rate at Duke and Vandy was about 3 percent last year.

For MC and UMC students without hooks, I think you really need to love Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford to apply SCEA. Like, you can't imagine yourself anywhere else. But the risk is incredibly high. The RD round is carnage for a lot of great students.

I think I agree with you. We have a Princeton legacy with a tippy top SAT score, top grades and rigor, and good extracurriculars, and even we are not sure whether to take this chance or not next year, given that legacy does not appear to be a strong advantage these days from what we were told. DC loves Princeton but also almost equally loves one of the other schools on your list that gives a clear advantage to ED applicants, so it may just not be worth the risk and hassle to try for SCEA.

My super high achieving P'ton legacy was deferred last night and it feels crummy. But despite my efforts to interest dc in other schools, this was dc's clear preference by a mile and I feel like in the end it's not my decision since I won't have to attend. If your child likes another, less-selective school equally well, of course that makes sense. But also - people here are making it sound like ED to Brown, Penn, Columbia is easily achievable, and the data from our school shows differently. Lots of qualified, even standout kids are rejected in ED too.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope that he gets excited by other schools, and there is some time for him to come around to seeing what other places have to offer. I'm sure your DC knows that deferral or rejection is in no way a reflection of his abilities, but it is still a crummy feeling. Good luck to your DC in the regular round!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point in admissions they are asking for reasons to keep you in the pool of 3x the qualified applicant pool to keep you in the mix.

They are also looking for reasons to keep you out because that’s where they can reassign the blame and put it on the student so that parents don’t come back at them and go ballistic.

You give them any reason to cut you loose, and they will.

Source: used to be an alumni interviewer, I got really depressed about 25 years ago when a kid at the school I interviewed at committed suicide by hanging himself from a prep school stairwell when his acceptance was rescinded

If this is the story about the kid who went out drinking to celebrate the acceptance and then self-reported the violation, it is profoundly sad, but it would be heartbreaking in any case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least 4 in to Princeton from Dalton

Holy moly

Legacy duh

More like the fact that Dalton is already ridiculously selective itself.

And filled with rich legacy. Duh