Sorry but this American college admissions "rat race" is stupid ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100 years ago, 50 years ago, ivies are expensive, even MC may not be able to afford it. And ivies mostly get their students from boarding schools and private schools. So yeah at that time it’s reserved to rich privileged families.

If we go back to those times, restrict the seats from the commons, there would never be a rat race. I mean, it only becomes a rat race when the commons think they are attainable to them.

Transparency matters. They should be honest about the students and families they want instead of misleading people into thinking everyone has a fair shot. It’s obvious that isn’t true, so why lie?

It is fair, it just might not meet your definition of 'fairness'. They are very transparent in that they do not care solely about academics but rather ensuring that the vast majority cross a very high bar. They lower that bar a bit for people who fit institutional priorities but keep it high enough to be comfortable that everyone admitted will succeed. They want people from across the US and across the globe and they also want to ensure that socioeconomic conditions are not a barrier to admissions.

Using that criteria the number of applications that they receive from a group of mostly similar candidates far exceeds the spots at their schools which results in a situation where most people never know why they were admitted or denied. This also means that there is randomness and a bit of luck involved. It is frustrating but it isn't unfair.

I would not call the holistic review "very transparent". Does companies hire employees by holistic review? Does any company hire a quant trader by checking his violin skills?
1. Despite the prestige, these elite institutions do not guarantee better financial or career success after graduation.
2. If international students are included in the target student pool, these institutions should not receive tax sponsorship or tax-exempt status, since American students are not given higher priority.

A company hires employees based on their skills, and that includes how they work with others and how they communicate, etc. But if you can discuss during an interview things that show you are more than a robot (ie play the violin or teach music to kids at the local Y) you might land the job over someone who cannot make eye contact and cannot communicate but is wickedly smart. Because yes the holistic person matters in the real world as well.

There is a good chance your boss (and their boss) did not attend an elite school, yet they are managing you and getting paid more than others who did attend an elite school.

What you’re saying ultimately leads to the conclusion that there’s no real need to compete for elite or Ivy League schools. Plenty of influencers with strong looks and social skills are eager to sell products online without any elite credentials.

Your example about your boss actually proves that chasing elite schools is unnecessary.
Soft skills are not exclusive to elite private institutions—they’re available and trainable everywhere. Even someone working at KFC needs to maintain eye contact and communicate well. The assumption that intelligent people are all shy or socially awkward is simply absurd.

Why yes, that was exactly my point! You don't need to attend an elite school to be successful. If you want to and get in, it doesn't guarantee success either. If you cannot easily afford it, you shouldn't waste your money on it either.
But for those who can afford it, it can be a great experience. But that's only if it's the right fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sucks except if you win. Then it’s great. There is nothing globally that is like the education, connections and level of services of all kinds available at the tippy-top of American higher education.

No, it sucks period. The reason that it sucks is the supply/demand imbalance and the simple fact that there are some whom believe that there are only a small number of schools which "matter" and everything else is a failure. That entire mental model is ridiculous with anything deeper than a surface evaluation because you will quickly realize that this is a demand/ego driven belief rather than any actual difference in quality.

There is a difference in quality. Stanford is better than Arizona State. This is true even though you can succeed in spite of attending Arizona State and even though you may not succeed in spite of attending Stanford.

That is true, Stanford is measurably better than Arizona State. But, Stanford isn't measurably better than Santa Clara especially for undergraduate education.

My suspicion is that Santa Clara is just as good as Stanford for tech majors but wouldn't be as good for other majors.

The quality of the professors and of the other students is certainly going to be higher at any elite school than the majority of state schools.

The real point is that schools are better grouped into buckets, you cannot really stack rank them in any manner that is definitive. And, the top bucket is much larger than many people believe.

In terms of educational quality it may be true that the top bucket is really 100 colleges rather than 20. But in terms of bang for the buck, I certainly made distinctions between top 10 and 50-100. I was prepared to pay full price for top 10, but full price for private or out of state public ranked 11-100, forget it.

And that is your choice. But I personally think it's a ridiculous choice. If you have the $$$, most in the T100 are still worth it if it's the right fit for your kid.
But you are stating you wouldn't pay $90K for a school ranked 15 or 25? That's BS and I feel for your kid.

No I absolutely would not pay full price for Rice, WUSL, Emory, or Notre Dame, let alone Boston College, NYU, or Villanova.

Don't feel bad for my kid, he did better than any of the above.

That is your choice. But imo seems a bit strange if you can afford it (and if you can't afford it well then it's not worth it for t10 either)


My kid is actually happier (I think) at their t40 than they would have been at the pressure cooker if a t10 they wanted. They are successful and will do great things--because of their work not because of the school

[Anonymous]

I think most people can’t really comprehend what a 5 to 10 percent admission rate looks like, but that’s the range at most top schools, even schools outside the T20 which have comparatively generous ED acceptance rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways you can go about it

1. Prioritize T20 admission from a young age. Tailor everything towards that goal. Push ahead even if student is not interested in the thing they were doing, because it would look good to colleges. You would have a tough 5-6 years.

2. Prioritize academics and doing well in high school, regardless of how it looks to colleges. Do things you like and drop things you do not like. Take classes you like, but do emphasize rigor in all subjects, not because colleges like to see that, but because they are building blocks and a strong foundation is essential.

T20 admission is a low probability anyway. Even if you choose option #1, you might not end up at T20. That seemed to be a bad tradeoff to me.

If you choose option #2, even if your overall chances of getting into T20 are lower than if you choose #1, you win either way because (a) you did what you loved and if ended up not going to T20, you have that happy HS years (b) if you did end up at T20, you just got a bonus. Heads I win, tails I don't lose.

That is how we made the decision. Turns out when you do things that you do love, it is easier for others to see it as well. It showed up in how my son got voted to the top position in the team and most likely how the teachers wrote the recommendation letters. Ended at HYP.

There is actually a third option, which is to not even allow your kid to apply to Ivy-plus schools (or other similarly-priced schools), even if they have the stats and the money for them. That is what we did, and we’re happy with the results so far.

What if that's where your kid wants to attend? If you can afford it, why not allow them to apply?

Because if you don’t take it off the table altogether, then as soon as their friends start hiring private counselors (8th grade, for us, though the friends in question were a grade or two ahead), everything becomes “Larla says her counselor says Harvard wants …”

So you parent your kid and have serious discussions about finding the right fit for them. And create a good list of reasonable targets and safety schools to apply to along with the dream schools.
Then you set expectations.

However if you truly are not willing to pay then you let your kid know that early on.

Nobody is creating a list of reasonable targets and safeties for an 8th grader. But 8th graders are absolutely telling each other what they “need to do” for Harvard. You need to take those schools off the table if you want your kid to have a chance to be free.

[Anonymous]

You won’t be part of the rat race unless your kid is smart and competitive. My oldest is an academic superstar and absolutely gunning for Ivy+ schools. My middle child is not like this at all and we are very lax with him. My youngest is in the middle.

My oldest will probably end up at a T10 school. My middle will go to some big state school or T20-T50 school. My youngest will probably end up at Georgetown or NYU type school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think most people can’t really comprehend what a 5 to 10 percent admission rate looks like, but that’s the range at most top schools, even schools outside the T20 which have comparatively generous ED acceptance rates.

I agree. I think low acceptance rates should be expressed as ratios, not percentages, because it paints a clearer picture.
20% is 1 in 5
10% is 1 in 10
5% is 1 in 20
2% is 1 in 50

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most people can’t really comprehend what a 5 to 10 percent admission rate looks like, but that’s the range at most top schools, even schools outside the T20 which have comparatively generous ED acceptance rates.

I agree. I think low acceptance rates should be expressed as ratios, not percentages, because it paints a clearer picture.
20% is 1 in 5
10% is 1 in 10
5% is 1 in 20
2% is 1 in 50

The acceptance rate really needs to be looked at separately for hooked and unhooked applicants, because the results are totally different. At a school with a 3.5% overall acceptance rate, hooked applicants might see something closer to a 15–25% admit rate, while unhooked applicants could be down around 0.1%.

Everyone knows being a hooked applicant effectively works like a form of affirmative action in admissions.

[Anonymous]

This isn’t about being bitter or having sour grapes. Plenty of middle-class families raise very capable, hardworking kids, and those students should have a fair shot at strong schools—whether that’s a T5 or a T30. But under the banner of fairness? it’s often middle-class families who are given false hope. They’re told that if their children work hard and have talent, it will pay off in the long run. They’re encouraged to apply to prestigious institutions because that’s supposedly where the best and brightest go. Is it?

The reality is that unhooked, middle-class applicants are competing for a tiny number of remaining spots. It becomes a rat race. Some families see this clearly and choose more practical majors or schools that will genuinely value their children’s abilities and effort. Some capable students opt out entirely, stepping away from the madness to start their careers or businesses earlier.

Whether that’s unfortunate or simply pragmatic depends on perspective. In the end, every family has to make the most sensible choice for themselves. One simple rule still applies: there’s no reason to take on heavy debt just for the sake of prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100 years ago, 50 years ago, ivies are expensive, even MC may not be able to afford it. And ivies mostly get their students from boarding schools and private schools. So yeah at that time it’s reserved to rich privileged families.

If we go back to those times, restrict the seats from the commons, there would never be a rat race. I mean, it only becomes a rat race when the commons think they are attainable to them.

Transparency matters. They should be honest about the students and families they want instead of misleading people into thinking everyone has a fair shot. It’s obvious that isn’t true, so why lie?

It is fair, it just might not meet your definition of 'fairness'. They are very transparent in that they do not care solely about academics but rather ensuring that the vast majority cross a very high bar. They lower that bar a bit for people who fit institutional priorities but keep it high enough to be comfortable that everyone admitted will succeed. They want people from across the US and across the globe and they also want to ensure that socioeconomic conditions are not a barrier to admissions.

Using that criteria the number of applications that they receive from a group of mostly similar candidates far exceeds the spots at their schools which results in a situation where most people never know why they were admitted or denied. This also means that there is randomness and a bit of luck involved. It is frustrating but it isn't unfair.

I would not call the holistic review "very transparent". Does companies hire employees by holistic review? Does any company hire a quant trader by checking his violin skills?
1. Despite the prestige, these elite institutions do not guarantee better financial or career success after graduation.
2. If international students are included in the target student pool, these institutions should not receive tax sponsorship or tax-exempt status, since American students are not given higher priority.

There is a good chance your boss (and their boss) did not attend an elite school, yet they are managing you and getting paid more than others who did attend an elite school.

True, but also true that graduates of elite schools are unquestionably over-represented in corporate management, law, academia, politics, finance, you name it. Go to an Ivy, and top employers will chase you. Go to most state flagships, and you will have to chase the top employers (and you probably won't catch them).

There are plenty of top notch kids who don't attend elite schools, most because they cannot afford it or it simply isn't on the radar---they attend state U or private schools that give them great merit. But kids with the drive to attend a T25 school do exceedingly well in life. Because it's what they do that gets them there. There are plenty from non elite schools in upper management at top companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most people can’t really comprehend what a 5 to 10 percent admission rate looks like, but that’s the range at most top schools, even schools outside the T20 which have comparatively generous ED acceptance rates.

I agree. I think low acceptance rates should be expressed as ratios, not percentages, because it paints a clearer picture.
20% is 1 in 5
10% is 1 in 10
5% is 1 in 20
2% is 1 in 50

The acceptance rate really needs to be looked at separately for hooked and unhooked applicants, because the results are totally different. At a school with a 3.5% overall acceptance rate, hooked applicants might see something closer to a 15–25% admit rate, while unhooked applicants could be down around 0.1%.

Everyone knows being a hooked applicant effectively works like a form of affirmative action in admissions.

I generally agree, this is why parent's of "high stats" kids lose their minds on this forum. I wouldn't describe it as affirmative action, to my mind the issue is that some number of the spots are reserved for the athletes, legacies, donors, etc. Our unhooked kids are vying for a much smaller unknown number of seats against a much larger pool of applicants who are all very similar to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways you can go about it

1. Prioritize T20 admission from a young age. Tailor everything towards that goal. Push ahead even if student is not interested in the thing they were doing, because it would look good to colleges. You would have a tough 5-6 years.

2. Prioritize academics and doing well in high school, regardless of how it looks to colleges. Do things you like and drop things you do not like. Take classes you like, but do emphasize rigor in all subjects, not because colleges like to see that, but because they are building blocks and a strong foundation is essential.

T20 admission is a low probability anyway. Even if you choose option #1, you might not end up at T20. That seemed to be a bad tradeoff to me.

If you choose option #2, even if your overall chances of getting into T20 are lower than if you choose #1, you win either way because (a) you did what you loved and if ended up not going to T20, you have that happy HS years (b) if you did end up at T20, you just got a bonus. Heads I win, tails I don't lose.

That is how we made the decision. Turns out when you do things that you do love, it is easier for others to see it as well. It showed up in how my son got voted to the top position in the team and most likely how the teachers wrote the recommendation letters. Ended at HYP.

There is actually a third option, which is to not even allow your kid to apply to Ivy-plus schools (or other similarly-priced schools), even if they have the stats and the money for them. That is what we did, and we’re happy with the results so far.

What if that's where your kid wants to attend? If you can afford it, why not allow them to apply?

Because if you don’t take it off the table altogether, then as soon as their friends start hiring private counselors (8th grade, for us, though the friends in question were a grade or two ahead), everything becomes “Larla says her counselor says Harvard wants …”

So you parent your kid and have serious discussions about finding the right fit for them. And create a good list of reasonable targets and safety schools to apply to along with the dream schools.
Then you set expectations.

However if you truly are not willing to pay then you let your kid know that early on.

Nobody is creating a list of reasonable targets and safeties for an 8th grader. But 8th graders are absolutely telling each other what they “need to do” for Harvard. You need to take those schools off the table if you want your kid to have a chance to be free.

So then perhaps, just maybe 8th grade is a time to have the first discussions about college with your kid. Let them know there are 100s of other excellent choices outside of the Harvard's.
It's called parenting.

Just like there are 8th graders telling your kid they should have sex, drink, try drugs, spend $$$$ on silly things, I hope you also have discussions with your kid (then and hopefully well before 8th grade) about not bowing to peer pressure and how other kids don't really know what is best.
And yes 7/8th grade is a great time to discuss a HS academic map, and why you need to do some ECs, but that you should make them ones you enjoy. And why you should pick a few and try to stick with them thru HS (yes it looks good for apps, but it also teaches your kid to focus on a few things and not just random.ly switch all the time.). But you teach and guide your kid thru this.

For one kid it was easy. The other is much smarter and had the potential for top schools. We discussed the college admissions process and what it takes. We worked with our kid and helped them make decisions. For that kid, we consciously choose to let them stop Foreign language after year 3. Why? Because the year 4 option that fit into their schedule (without dropping band which my kid loved) was taught by a crazy lady who couldn't teach---my kid had survived FL year 2 with that crazy person and no way in hell were they going to take AP FL or any course with that wacko (they were the worst teacher any of my kids ever had in MS/HS). So my kid stopped at FL 3. And knew it might hurt their chances of getting into T20 schools. They also chose not to take AP courses they didn't want to take. They focused on STEM and skipped the extra work of APUSH and AP Eng. They knew it might hurt their admission chances, but chose to spend more time on the EC they loved and get more than 2-3 hours of sleep each night (their EC was time consuming and my kid didn't want to have 2-3 hours of HW to get done once they got home at 9/10pm each night for classes that didn't interest them).
So yes, my kid knew these choices might affect college admissions, and chose wisely. And yes it might have affected them. But hard to tell at places with 5-7% acceptance rates---my kid likely still would have been rejected. Difference is my kid had the HS academic path they wanted. And you know what, the 2 colleges they ultimately picked from (T40-50) did NOT allow you to use AP credit for core curriculum. So that was the only reason my kid had considered taking one or both of them, was to get college credit. So in the end, my kid made the right choice for them. And made these choices freshman year of HS. They got into every school they applied to outside of the T30, most with excellent merit, and were WL at two T30 schools.

I know they are happy we parented them and helped them see the light of how not to have a crazy HS just in hopes of a T25 school that might not happen anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most people can’t really comprehend what a 5 to 10 percent admission rate looks like, but that’s the range at most top schools, even schools outside the T20 which have comparatively generous ED acceptance rates.

I agree. I think low acceptance rates should be expressed as ratios, not percentages, because it paints a clearer picture.
20% is 1 in 5
10% is 1 in 10
5% is 1 in 20
2% is 1 in 50

Umm, nope. FOr anyone who is "qualified" to apply to a T25 school, they shouldn't need help understanding that a 5% acceptance rate means 95% are REJECTED. If they cannot comprehend that, they don't belong at a T25 school really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about being bitter or having sour grapes. Plenty of middle-class families raise very capable, hardworking kids, and those students should have a fair shot at strong schools—whether that’s a T5 or a T30. But under the banner of fairness? it’s often middle-class families who are given false hope. They’re told that if their children work hard and have talent, it will pay off in the long run. They’re encouraged to apply to prestigious institutions because that’s supposedly where the best and brightest go. Is it?

The reality is that unhooked, middle-class applicants are competing for a tiny number of remaining spots. It becomes a rat race. Some families see this clearly and choose more practical majors or schools that will genuinely value their children’s abilities and effort. Some capable students opt out entirely, stepping away from the madness to start their careers or businesses earlier.

Whether that’s unfortunate or simply pragmatic depends on perspective. In the end, every family has to make the most sensible choice for themselves. One simple rule still applies: there’s no reason to take on heavy debt just for the sake of prestige.

It's easy to understand the "rat race" and realize it is very easy to find great schools that won't cost 90K. My own kid (1480/3.95UW/8AP mostly stem) and decent EC got into 7 schools ranked 30-80. All gave decent to great merit. a T50 would have only cost us $40-45K/year (a 90K school) and we were not even trying to get merit, that was just the basic merit offered for applying.

Most people recognize this and apply accordingly. It's only crazies on DCUM/in rich areas that are obsessed and feel entitled to send their kid to a T25 school "because they are smart"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most people can’t really comprehend what a 5 to 10 percent admission rate looks like, but that’s the range at most top schools, even schools outside the T20 which have comparatively generous ED acceptance rates.

I agree. I think low acceptance rates should be expressed as ratios, not percentages, because it paints a clearer picture.
20% is 1 in 5
10% is 1 in 10
5% is 1 in 20
2% is 1 in 50

Umm, nope. FOr anyone who is "qualified" to apply to a T25 school, they shouldn't need help understanding that a 5% acceptance rate means 95% are REJECTED. If they cannot comprehend that, they don't belong at a T25 school really.

The point here would be to help students who are not qualified to understand that they are not going to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn’t about being bitter or having sour grapes. Plenty of middle-class families raise very capable, hardworking kids, and those students should have a fair shot at strong schools—whether that’s a T5 or a T30. But under the banner of fairness? it’s often middle-class families who are given false hope. They’re told that if their children work hard and have talent, it will pay off in the long run. They’re encouraged to apply to prestigious institutions because that’s supposedly where the best and brightest go. Is it?

The reality is that unhooked, middle-class applicants are competing for a tiny number of remaining spots. It becomes a rat race. Some families see this clearly and choose more practical majors or schools that will genuinely value their children’s abilities and effort. Some capable students opt out entirely, stepping away from the madness to start their careers or businesses earlier.

Whether that’s unfortunate or simply pragmatic depends on perspective. In the end, every family has to make the most sensible choice for themselves. One simple rule still applies: there’s no reason to take on heavy debt just for the sake of prestige.

It's easy to understand the "rat race" and realize it is very easy to find great schools that won't cost 90K. My own kid (1480/3.95UW/8AP mostly stem) and decent EC got into 7 schools ranked 30-80. All gave decent to great merit. a T50 would have only cost us $40-45K/year (a 90K school) and we were not even trying to get merit, that was just the basic merit offered for applying.

Most people recognize this and apply accordingly. It's only crazies on DCUM/in rich areas that are obsessed and feel entitled to send their kid to a T25 school "because they are smart"

The "crazies on DCUM" typically have a much higher score 1550+.