Top colleges that are actually on the table for unhooked standard strong kids.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Pre SC


You’re dreaming if you think the admission boosts stopped after the Supreme Court decision. The day of the decision everyone from Biden on down was announcing that the ruling wouldn’t stop them.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Stop lying. You'd think these "top colleges" would be overrun with URMs. The URMs (8% of the total student population if you are lucky) would manage to squeak in have the stats, the ECs and everything else.


If admission was purely based on stats, URMs would be 1% of the students not 8%. They are massively over represented.

+1 It's not about representation of the US population, but about the representation of the applicant body. Asian Americans and white students apply at a higher rate to top colleges compared to URM. That is why there are a lot more Asian Americans, and that is also why the stats for URM are much lower. There aren't as many high performing URM, so when the few who do apply, get in with lower stats.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Assuming full suite of GPA, test scores, and strong but not recruited ECs.

I'd say
UChicago ED
Wash U (st louis)
Vandy
Brown ED
ND
Service Academies
JHU
Northwestern ED



I think that top test scores and raw intellectual brilliance might be a good hook for UChicago, Wash. U., Johns Hopkins, Cal Tech and Harvey Mudd.

Maybe especially strong charitable activities would be important at Brown, ND and the service academies.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Stop lying. You'd think these "top colleges" would be overrun with URMs. The URMs (8% of the total student population if you are lucky) would manage to squeak in have the stats, the ECs and everything else.


If admission was purely based on stats, URMs would be 1% of the students not 8%. They are massively over represented.

+1 It's not about representation of the US population, but about the representation of the applicant body. Asian Americans and white students apply at a higher rate to top colleges compared to URM. That is why there are a lot more Asian Americans, and that is also why the stats for URM are much lower. There aren't as many high performing URM, so when the few who do apply, get in with lower stats.


There are actually tons of high-stats Black kids out there. I remember seeing a chance me from a Black kid from New York who had an 800M/750V and a high GPA who ended up at NYU CS. He was rejected by most of the other schools he applied to, including MIT.

Schools like Creighton or Seton Hall might have trouble getting high-stats Black kids, but the schools people obsess about here don’t.

And schools like HYPSM have no problem with admitting Black kids with stats comparable to what the Asian kids have. The gap there will be in the ECs and awards.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:MIT is on the table.

We have a couple MIT kids every year and they're almost never hooked in any way, including (at our school) not having national awards.

Then they must have been girls. For boys, it's almost impossible without national awards unless they're URM.


DCUM posters act as if 100% of new admits each year are URMs.

Look at the existing demographics of these top schools.

Get real.

What does this have to do with the fact that it’s much much easier for URMs to get into any top schools?



Stop lying. You'd think these "top colleges" would be overrun with URMs. The URMs (8% of the total student population if you are lucky) would manage to squeak in have the stats, the ECs and everything else.

+1 Exactly



No.

My little college job was in the Registrar's Office.

Top twenty kind of school. Saw everyone's GPA and Test Scores.

It's not even close.

Black students have a huge advantage. It really isn't comparable.


Well, and if so: They’re mostly here because our forefathers stuffed their ancestors in the hold of a ship and dragged them here, then tortured them for centuries, then put them in neighborhoods blanketed with auto exhaust. If we can compensate by making it a little easier for them to go to Harvard, why is that a problem?

The real problem is that, because of hostility to affirmative action, a lot of the sneaky holistic admissions bump goes to the kids of doctors from Ghana, not the descendants of the victims of slavery. I wish we talked less about Black people as a whole and more about equity for the Black kids who’ve managed to do pretty well despite being stuck in terrible schools with no resources at all.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:MIT is on the table.

We have a couple MIT kids every year and they're almost never hooked in any way, including (at our school) not having national awards.

Then they must have been girls. For boys, it's almost impossible without national awards unless they're URM.


DCUM posters act as if 100% of new admits each year are URMs.

Look at the existing demographics of these top schools.

Get real.

What does this have to do with the fact that it’s much much easier for URMs to get into any top schools?



Stop lying. You'd think these "top colleges" would be overrun with URMs. The URMs (8% of the total student population if you are lucky) would manage to squeak in have the stats, the ECs and everything else.

+1 Exactly



No.

My little college job was in the Registrar's Office.

Top twenty kind of school. Saw everyone's GPA and Test Scores.

It's not even close.

Black students have a huge advantage. It really isn't comparable.


Well, and if so: They’re mostly here because our forefathers stuffed their ancestors in the hold of a ship and dragged them here, then tortured them for centuries, then put them in neighborhoods blanketed with auto exhaust. If we can compensate by making it a little easier for them to go to Harvard, why is that a problem?

The real problem is that, because of hostility to affirmative action, a lot of the sneaky holistic admissions bump goes to the kids of doctors from Ghana, not the descendants of the victims of slavery. I wish we talked less about Black people as a whole and more about equity for the Black kids who’ve managed to do pretty well despite being stuck in terrible schools with no resources at all.


Hispanics? No. They are no different than every other immigrant population in the history of our country.

I agree with blacks and native Americans. I do not get the Hispanic bump.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Stop lying. You'd think these "top colleges" would be overrun with URMs. The URMs (8% of the total student population if you are lucky) would manage to squeak in have the stats, the ECs and everything else.


If admission was purely based on stats, URMs would be 1% of the students not 8%. They are massively over represented.

+1 It's not about representation of the US population, but about the representation of the applicant body. Asian Americans and white students apply at a higher rate to top colleges compared to URM. That is why there are a lot more Asian Americans, and that is also why the stats for URM are much lower. There aren't as many high performing URM, so when the few who do apply, get in with lower stats.


There are actually tons of high-stats Black kids out there. I remember seeing a chance me from a Black kid from New York who had an 800M/750V and a high GPA who ended up at NYU CS. He was rejected by most of the other schools he applied to, including MIT.

Schools like Creighton or Seton Hall might have trouble getting high-stats Black kids, but the schools people obsess about here don’t.

And schools like HYPSM have no problem with admitting Black kids with stats comparable to what the Asian kids have. The gap there will be in the ECs and awards.

False. Harvard lawsuit says there is a huge gap even for stats.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:MIT is on the table.

We have a couple MIT kids every year and they're almost never hooked in any way, including (at our school) not having national awards.

Then they must have been girls. For boys, it's almost impossible without national awards unless they're URM.


DCUM posters act as if 100% of new admits each year are URMs.

Look at the existing demographics of these top schools.

Get real.

What does this have to do with the fact that it’s much much easier for URMs to get into any top schools?



Stop lying. You'd think these "top colleges" would be overrun with URMs. The URMs (8% of the total student population if you are lucky) would manage to squeak in have the stats, the ECs and everything else.

+1 Exactly



No.

My little college job was in the Registrar's Office.

Top twenty kind of school. Saw everyone's GPA and Test Scores.

It's not even close.

Black students have a huge advantage. It really isn't comparable.


I agree. My sense of t( data is that URM enjoy a 0.15-0.2 GPA advantage and 100-150 points SAT advantage.So a 3.75 1450 is like. 3.9-3.95 w 1550-1600 non URM.

Asians need 400 points higher on SATs in order to have the same chance as blacks. This is even without considering the even bigger gap in ECs and awards.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Assuming full suite of GPA, test scores, and strong but not recruited ECs.

I'd say
UChicago ED
Wash U (st louis)
Vandy
Brown ED
ND
Service Academies
JHU
Northwestern ED



I think that top test scores and raw intellectual brilliance might be a good hook for UChicago, Wash. U., Johns Hopkins, Cal Tech and Harvey Mudd.

Maybe especially strong charitable activities would be important at Brown, ND and the service academies.


This, kind of. We're in this weird situation where the kids who are best prepared to indulge in actual academic inquiry are not favored at those other "top" schools that emphasize social factors over scholarship (or perhaps along with scholarship). I'm ok if that leaves places like UChicago, Johns Hopkins, and Harvey Mudd to rediscover their roots as scholarly institutions rather than finishing schools. If you have an intellectually curious kid who shouldn't be limited by the "hooks" song and dance, I hope these schools will continue to welcome students like yours.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Stop lying. You'd think these "top colleges" would be overrun with URMs. The URMs (8% of the total student population if you are lucky) would manage to squeak in have the stats, the ECs and everything else.


If admission was purely based on stats, URMs would be 1% of the students not 8%. They are massively over represented.

+1 It's not about representation of the US population, but about the representation of the applicant body. Asian Americans and white students apply at a higher rate to top colleges compared to URM. That is why there are a lot more Asian Americans, and that is also why the stats for URM are much lower. There aren't as many high performing URM, so when the few who do apply, get in with lower stats.


There are actually tons of high-stats Black kids out there. I remember seeing a chance me from a Black kid from New York who had an 800M/750V and a high GPA who ended up at NYU CS. He was rejected by most of the other schools he applied to, including MIT.

Schools like Creighton or Seton Hall might have trouble getting high-stats Black kids, but the schools people obsess about here don’t.

And schools like HYPSM have no problem with admitting Black kids with stats comparable to what the Asian kids have. The gap there will be in the ECs and awards.

False. Harvard lawsuit says there is a huge gap even for stats.


Yes, there are definitely URM kids with the same stats as Asians at HYPS. But, that is definitely not true on average (i.e., in the comparison of the average of the URM pool vs average of Asian pool).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Assuming full suite of GPA, test scores, and strong but not recruited ECs.

I'd say
UChicago ED
Wash U (st louis)
Vandy
Brown ED
ND
Service Academies
JHU
Northwestern ED



I think that top test scores and raw intellectual brilliance might be a good hook for UChicago, Wash. U., Johns Hopkins, Cal Tech and Harvey Mudd.

No experience with Harvey Mud, but as a JHU undergrad and Chicago PhD (within the last decade), I can definitely say that I enjoyed the "purely academic" aspects of both schools. None of the extra non sense that you get in many other schools. I realize I am biased by my own experience and definitely in the minority here on DCUM in thinking this way..

Maybe especially strong charitable activities would be important at Brown, ND and the service academies.


This, kind of. We're in this weird situation where the kids who are best prepared to indulge in actual academic inquiry are not favored at those other "top" schools that emphasize social factors over scholarship (or perhaps along with scholarship). I'm ok if that leaves places like UChicago, Johns Hopkins, and Harvey Mudd to rediscover their roots as scholarly institutions rather than finishing schools. If you have an intellectually curious kid who shouldn't be limited by the "hooks" song and dance, I hope these schools will continue to welcome students like yours.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Assuming full suite of GPA, test scores, and strong but not recruited ECs.

I'd say
UChicago ED
Wash U (st louis)
Vandy
Brown ED
ND
Service Academies
JHU
Northwestern ED



I think that top test scores and raw intellectual brilliance might be a good hook for UChicago, Wash. U., Johns Hopkins, Cal Tech and Harvey Mudd.

Maybe especially strong charitable activities would be important at Brown, ND and the service academies.


This, kind of. We're in this weird situation where the kids who are best prepared to indulge in actual academic inquiry are not favored at those other "top" schools that emphasize social factors over scholarship (or perhaps along with scholarship). I'm ok if that leaves places like UChicago, Johns Hopkins, and Harvey Mudd to rediscover their roots as scholarly institutions rather than finishing schools. If you have an intellectually curious kid who shouldn't be limited by the "hooks" song and dance, I hope these schools will continue to welcome students like yours.


No experience with Harvey Mud, but as a JHU undergrad and Chicago PhD (within the last decade), I can definitely say that I enjoyed the "purely academic" aspects of both schools. None of the extra nonsense that you get in many other schools. I realize I am biased by my own experience and definitely in the minority here on DCUM in thinking this way..
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Assuming full suite of GPA, test scores, and strong but not recruited ECs.

I'd say
UChicago ED
Wash U (st louis)
Vandy
Brown ED
ND
Service Academies
JHU
Northwestern ED



I think that top test scores and raw intellectual brilliance might be a good hook for UChicago, Wash. U., Johns Hopkins, Cal Tech and Harvey Mudd.

Maybe especially strong charitable activities would be important at Brown, ND and the service academies.


This, kind of. We're in this weird situation where the kids who are best prepared to indulge in actual academic inquiry are not favored at those other "top" schools that emphasize social factors over scholarship (or perhaps along with scholarship). I'm ok if that leaves places like UChicago, Johns Hopkins, and Harvey Mudd to rediscover their roots as scholarly institutions rather than finishing schools. If you have an intellectually curious kid who shouldn't be limited by the "hooks" song and dance, I hope these schools will continue to welcome students like yours.


No experience with Harvey Mud, but as a JHU undergrad and Chicago PhD (within the last decade), I can definitely say that I enjoyed the "purely academic" aspects of both schools. None of the extra nonsense that you get in many other schools. I realize I am biased by my own experience and definitely in the minority here on DCUM in thinking this way..


I have always valued merit based acceptances, promotions, team placements in sports, academic and work. It gets fuzzy when one lets merit go and in favor of different agendas. It's not sustainable and eventually the reputation of the institution, team, etc. begins to suffer. I'm hearing this about recent medical schools--and it's pretty scary. Who do you want operating on your brain? I'm going to guess you want the best regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, or family background.
Anonymous
The use of athletic ability/ECs etc in the US determining admissions is nearly unique globally. In most other places, they accept students based on merit and then let them explore their amateur athletic/EC interests in college. Why, for instance, does Harvard need to have the best squash player in the world? The US system is totally broken.
Anonymous
Prediction: Penn, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell and maybe Columbia will outperform Harvard, Yale and Princeton over the next 20 years on many metrics but especially career outcomes because they have quietly attracted much stronger students who in prior decades would have gone to HYP. The main culprit is legacy in much higher proportions at HYP but also the de facto “penalty for being an Asian applicant is much less at Penn, Brown and Cornell. The lower applications at SCEA at Harvard this year are the canary in the coal mine. 3rd generation “Blair” at HYP can no longer be “placed” at Morgan Stanley because his Econ degree which is math light in the modern era doesn’t bring much.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: