Which schools accepted your 4.3 - 4.4 TJ kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said!

I disagree that all hooks are the same. Whatever one might personally think about whether the emphasis on athletics is good or bad, the combination of work and talent to be a D-1 athlete is something that the applicant actually achieved himself/herself based on merit. In contrast, URM status on the one end and legacy status on the other hand are attributes that applicants are born with and have nothing to do with merit. That’s the major difference - people can quibble about the value of sports, but ultimately, being a top athlete is still a merit-based achievement with largely objective standards in the same manner as academic achievements. As a result, that is very different from a hook that is based on an attribute from birth as opposed to merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes don’t bring anything to the table that a talented musician, performer, inventor or businessperson also brings. Why special elite slots for them should be reserved to fill teams boggles my mind. Make all the sports club sports with no recruiting value other than an EC.

The intangibles that successful student athletes possess usually leads to these same kids succeeding and excelling in business, they are highly sought after by the most discriminating of employers to include and particularly wall street.

When I was at an elite group within a T3 investment bank I remember every recruiting season HR would drop a resume book of literally hundreds of resumes from a handful of school and asked for me to pick out some. When every resume is harvard, penn, columbia, etc. I looked for differentiating factors and athletics was among the top criteria I used. But more importantly, when it came to actually speaking with these candidates it was night - day in terms of how much better they were put together/polished from an effective communication perspective.

Yep. I am friends with and family members of some really, really, really smart people that also happened to be D1 athletes in their sport. These people were in the top of their high school class, near perfect standardized test scores, very high GPAs.

They did this with all of the time limitations dedication to a sport at that level takes. AP/honors courses with a few hours of practice a night, traveling/games all weekend long, having to leave school early some days because of practices....and some of these kids headed up Clubs or were in student government, etc.

Being part of a sports team teaches you lessons of working together to accomplish a goal. You experience failure, getting cut, persevering, working with some you may not get along with to accomplish a goal. LEADERSHIP.

Yes- you can achieve these things in other ways, but as a female in STEM--I find most of the women I know holding top CEO/CFO type positions all played sports competitively.

What if you wanted to play softball or take ballet lessons when you were little, and your parents wouldn’t pay nor were they willing to investigate any low-cost or free community programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said!

I disagree that all hooks are the same. Whatever one might personally think about whether the emphasis on athletics is good or bad, the combination of work and talent to be a D-1 athlete is something that the applicant actually achieved himself/herself based on merit. In contrast, URM status on the one end and legacy status on the other hand are attributes that applicants are born with and have nothing to do with merit. That’s the major difference - people can quibble about the value of sports, but ultimately, being a top athlete is still a merit-based achievement with largely objective standards in the same manner as academic achievements. As a result, that is very different from a hook that is based on an attribute from birth as opposed to merit.

You’re individually choosing to place value on athletic achievements. Plenty of people do not. Colleges do and they also place value on having a diverse student body or maintaining ties with graduates. It’s all a value judgment and trying to parse one vs the other is marginal at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes don’t bring anything to the table that a talented musician, performer, inventor or businessperson also brings. Why special elite slots for them should be reserved to fill teams boggles my mind. Make all the sports club sports with no recruiting value other than an EC.

The intangibles that successful student athletes possess usually leads to these same kids succeeding and excelling in business, they are highly sought after by the most discriminating of employers to include and particularly wall street.

When I was at an elite group within a T3 investment bank I remember every recruiting season HR would drop a resume book of literally hundreds of resumes from a handful of school and asked for me to pick out some. When every resume is harvard, penn, columbia, etc. I looked for differentiating factors and athletics was among the top criteria I used. But more importantly, when it came to actually speaking with these candidates it was night - day in terms of how much better they were put together/polished from an effective communication perspective.

Yep. I am friends with and family members of some really, really, really smart people that also happened to be D1 athletes in their sport. These people were in the top of their high school class, near perfect standardized test scores, very high GPAs.

They did this with all of the time limitations dedication to a sport at that level takes. AP/honors courses with a few hours of practice a night, traveling/games all weekend long, having to leave school early some days because of practices....and some of these kids headed up Clubs or were in student government, etc.

Being part of a sports team teaches you lessons of working together to accomplish a goal. You experience failure, getting cut, persevering, working with some you may not get along with to accomplish a goal. LEADERSHIP.

Yes- you can achieve these things in other ways, but as a female in STEM--I find most of the women I know holding top CEO/CFO type positions all played sports competitively.

What if you wanted to play softball or take ballet lessons when you were little, and your parents wouldn’t pay nor were they willing to investigate any low-cost or free community programs?

You will never convince these people who worship at the altar of sports. As if it is unique in developing personality traits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes don’t bring anything to the table that a talented musician, performer, inventor or businessperson also brings. Why special elite slots for them should be reserved to fill teams boggles my mind. Make all the sports club sports with no recruiting value other than an EC.

The intangibles that successful student athletes possess usually leads to these same kids succeeding and excelling in business, they are highly sought after by the most discriminating of employers to include and particularly wall street.

When I was at an elite group within a T3 investment bank I remember every recruiting season HR would drop a resume book of literally hundreds of resumes from a handful of school and asked for me to pick out some. When every resume is harvard, penn, columbia, etc. I looked for differentiating factors and athletics was among the top criteria I used. But more importantly, when it came to actually speaking with these candidates it was night - day in terms of how much better they were put together/polished from an effective communication perspective.

Yep. I am friends with and family members of some really, really, really smart people that also happened to be D1 athletes in their sport. These people were in the top of their high school class, near perfect standardized test scores, very high GPAs.

They did this with all of the time limitations dedication to a sport at that level takes. AP/honors courses with a few hours of practice a night, traveling/games all weekend long, having to leave school early some days because of practices....and some of these kids headed up Clubs or were in student government, etc.

Being part of a sports team teaches you lessons of working together to accomplish a goal. You experience failure, getting cut, persevering, working with some you may not get along with to accomplish a goal. LEADERSHIP.

Yes- you can achieve these things in other ways, but as a female in STEM--I find most of the women I know holding top CEO/CFO type positions all played sports competitively.

What if you wanted to play softball or take ballet lessons when you were little, and your parents wouldn’t pay nor were they willing to investigate any low-cost or free community programs?

You will never convince these people who worship at the altar of sports. As if it is unique in developing personality traits.

The part that I find mind numbing is that athletics are a core part of the tradition at Ivies, why even target the Ivies if athletics hold no value to a possible applicant?

Its literally like dreaming of being in the NFL but uncompromisingly believing that the NFL should not allow contact when its systemic to the game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said!

I disagree that all hooks are the same. Whatever one might personally think about whether the emphasis on athletics is good or bad, the combination of work and talent to be a D-1 athlete is something that the applicant actually achieved himself/herself based on merit. In contrast, URM status on the one end and legacy status on the other hand are attributes that applicants are born with and have nothing to do with merit. That’s the major difference - people can quibble about the value of sports, but ultimately, being a top athlete is still a merit-based achievement with largely objective standards in the same manner as academic achievements. As a result, that is very different from a hook that is based on an attribute from birth as opposed to merit.

One kid likes skating, spends 4 hours a day on that, another kid likes playing violin 4 hours a day, the third kid likes playing video games 4 hours a day and is actually pretty good at it. Why should any of these be relevant to college admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said!

I disagree that all hooks are the same. Whatever one might personally think about whether the emphasis on athletics is good or bad, the combination of work and talent to be a D-1 athlete is something that the applicant actually achieved himself/herself based on merit. In contrast, URM status on the one end and legacy status on the other hand are attributes that applicants are born with and have nothing to do with merit. That’s the major difference - people can quibble about the value of sports, but ultimately, being a top athlete is still a merit-based achievement with largely objective standards in the same manner as academic achievements. As a result, that is very different from a hook that is based on an attribute from birth as opposed to merit.

One kid likes skating, spends 4 hours a day on that, another kid likes playing violin 4 hours a day, the third kid likes playing video games 4 hours a day and is actually pretty good at it. Why should any of these be relevant to college admissions?

It will depend if its an activity that is considered valued at the college. So to use your examples, Ivies do not have major programs in skating, violin or video games so not sure how important those will be factored.

That said, if your skater is an Olympic level skater or your violin player is a finalist at the Menuhin Competition or your video game player is earning 7+ figures as a pro-gamer, those will be compelling considerations.

But to respond to your point more specifically, time spent in one activity may not be of equal value to the college as time spent in other activities. The reason why some activities are relevant is because they have active programs at the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said!

I disagree that all hooks are the same. Whatever one might personally think about whether the emphasis on athletics is good or bad, the combination of work and talent to be a D-1 athlete is something that the applicant actually achieved himself/herself based on merit. In contrast, URM status on the one end and legacy status on the other hand are attributes that applicants are born with and have nothing to do with merit. That’s the major difference - people can quibble about the value of sports, but ultimately, being a top athlete is still a merit-based achievement with largely objective standards in the same manner as academic achievements. As a result, that is very different from a hook that is based on an attribute from birth as opposed to merit.

One kid likes skating, spends 4 hours a day on that, another kid likes playing violin 4 hours a day, the third kid likes playing video games 4 hours a day and is actually pretty good at it. Why should any of these be relevant to college admissions?

It will depend if its an activity that is considered valued at the college. So to use your examples, Ivies do not have major programs in skating, violin or video games so not sure how important those will be factored.

That said, if your skater is an Olympic level skater or your violin player is a finalist at the Menuhin Competition or your video game player is earning 7+ figures as a pro-gamer, those will be compelling considerations.

But to respond to your point more specifically, time spent in one activity may not be of equal value to the college as time spent in other activities. The reason why some activities are relevant is because they have active programs at the school.

Which is why all hooks are equal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes don’t bring anything to the table that a talented musician, performer, inventor or businessperson also brings. Why special elite slots for them should be reserved to fill teams boggles my mind. Make all the sports club sports with no recruiting value other than an EC.

The intangibles that successful student athletes possess usually leads to these same kids succeeding and excelling in business, they are highly sought after by the most discriminating of employers to include and particularly wall street.

When I was at an elite group within a T3 investment bank I remember every recruiting season HR would drop a resume book of literally hundreds of resumes from a handful of school and asked for me to pick out some. When every resume is harvard, penn, columbia, etc. I looked for differentiating factors and athletics was among the top criteria I used. But more importantly, when it came to actually speaking with these candidates it was night - day in terms of how much better they were put together/polished from an effective communication perspective.

Yep. I am friends with and family members of some really, really, really smart people that also happened to be D1 athletes in their sport. These people were in the top of their high school class, near perfect standardized test scores, very high GPAs.

They did this with all of the time limitations dedication to a sport at that level takes. AP/honors courses with a few hours of practice a night, traveling/games all weekend long, having to leave school early some days because of practices....and some of these kids headed up Clubs or were in student government, etc.

Being part of a sports team teaches you lessons of working together to accomplish a goal. You experience failure, getting cut, persevering, working with some you may not get along with to accomplish a goal. LEADERSHIP.

Yes- you can achieve these things in other ways, but as a female in STEM--I find most of the women I know holding top CEO/CFO type positions all played sports competitively.

What if you wanted to play softball or take ballet lessons when you were little, and your parents wouldn’t pay nor were they willing to investigate any low-cost or free community programs?

You will never convince these people who worship at the altar of sports. As if it is unique in developing personality traits.

The part that I find mind numbing is that athletics are a core part of the tradition at Ivies, why even target the Ivies if athletics hold no value to a possible applicant?

Its literally like dreaming of being in the NFL but uncompromisingly believing that the NFL should not allow contact when its systemic to the game

Not you again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes don’t bring anything to the table that a talented musician, performer, inventor or businessperson also brings. Why special elite slots for them should be reserved to fill teams boggles my mind. Make all the sports club sports with no recruiting value other than an EC.

The intangibles that successful student athletes possess usually leads to these same kids succeeding and excelling in business, they are highly sought after by the most discriminating of employers to include and particularly wall street.

When I was at an elite group within a T3 investment bank I remember every recruiting season HR would drop a resume book of literally hundreds of resumes from a handful of school and asked for me to pick out some. When every resume is harvard, penn, columbia, etc. I looked for differentiating factors and athletics was among the top criteria I used. But more importantly, when it came to actually speaking with these candidates it was night - day in terms of how much better they were put together/polished from an effective communication perspective.

Yep. I am friends with and family members of some really, really, really smart people that also happened to be D1 athletes in their sport. These people were in the top of their high school class, near perfect standardized test scores, very high GPAs.

They did this with all of the time limitations dedication to a sport at that level takes. AP/honors courses with a few hours of practice a night, traveling/games all weekend long, having to leave school early some days because of practices....and some of these kids headed up Clubs or were in student government, etc.

Being part of a sports team teaches you lessons of working together to accomplish a goal. You experience failure, getting cut, persevering, working with some you may not get along with to accomplish a goal. LEADERSHIP.

Yes- you can achieve these things in other ways, but as a female in STEM--I find most of the women I know holding top CEO/CFO type positions all played sports competitively.

What if you wanted to play softball or take ballet lessons when you were little, and your parents wouldn’t pay nor were they willing to investigate any low-cost or free community programs?

You will never convince these people who worship at the altar of sports. As if it is unique in developing personality traits.

The part that I find mind numbing is that athletics are a core part of the tradition at Ivies, why even target the Ivies if athletics hold no value to a possible applicant?

Its literally like dreaming of being in the NFL but uncompromisingly believing that the NFL should not allow contact when its systemic to the game

Not you again

I'm sure a perfectly nice person but you are just not a good fit for the Ivies culturally leave us alone please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP did your DD apply for CS major? Just curious.

[Anonymous]

DC had 4.4-4.5 from TJ.

36 ACT.

National science award winner.

University of Chicago.

The Ivies are overrated IMO and I went to one of the Big 3 Ivy schools.

Ivies are not as interested in excellence anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC had 4.4-4.5 from TJ.

36 ACT.

National science award winner.

University of Chicago.

The Ivies are overrated IMO and I went to one of the Big 3 Ivy schools.

Ivies are not as interested in excellence anymore.

so what are they interested in? Mediocrity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Is there a link to back up any of this?

I googled and there are numerous sources with the numbers: https://blog.collegevine.com/celebrity-sat-scores/

But they are numerous dubious sources with none of them citing where they actually obtained them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC had 4.4-4.5 from TJ.

36 ACT.

National science award winner.

University of Chicago.

The Ivies are overrated IMO and I went to one of the Big 3 Ivy schools.

Ivies are not as interested in excellence anymore.

so what are they interested in? Mediocrity?

Mostly not interested in her kid.

They didn’t take my precious so everything is mediocrity now.