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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You really won't like what follows:

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

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but that doesn't match the facts. Chicago is currently top 20 in the Directors cup. They recruit heavily but they don't have football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Colleges love athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You really won't like what follows:

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

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unhooked students are becoming more savvy about where they apply ED or SCEA. It's not just Williams and Amherst that are losing exceptional students. So many of the more accomplished unhooked students now are applying ED where it matters. I'm coming to believe that most Harvard and Williams students admitted in the RD round were likely rejected in the ED round from Duke, Chicago, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rice, Johns Hopkins and the other schools were strong unhooked ED applicants have a meaningful chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

I wonder how the new anti-DEI reality will filter down to women's sports in college. Women's sports are not big money and alumnae tend not to be big donors to their old schools/ teams as men. Will women athletes continue to get the same thumb on the scale in applications?

As long as Title IX exists, yes. However, if Trump goes after that, all bets are off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS is already in college but I want to post my thoughts for mainly Asian-American parents who will go through this process. For us, frankly, there were no surprises. We were very clear about what we wanted and what we were against. We knew quite early that the entire system is biased against Asian-American (especially males), and we prepared accordingly throughout his academic career. In fact, our entire planning was to make up for the various bamboo ceilings that he would encounter, and give him any edge regarding academics, ECs, health, support system, socialization, finances that we could.

- Financially - we saved for college and decided that our kids will never have student debt, even if we were subsisting on rice and beans.
- Prestige - we concentrated on the major/research/course offering and not the college. Eventually, he did not get into his top choice (MIT) but got into second choice (UMD) that he chose over other strong STEM schools like UMich and GTech.
- Academics - kid was in STEM magnet, had 4.0 GPA, 4.8 wGPA, 1590 SAT, NMS finalist, Foreign language for 5 years culminating in AP FL- from MS till HS, 12 APs with 5s. Strong ECs, scientific competitions, volunteer work and co-author on published paper after research internship. There were no faults in his resume and achievements.

What is important is not getting into a college, but, being able to thrive in college - academically, socially and mentally. They need to get a holistic education, they need to develop as an individual, they need to be able to strategize and plan for their future.

Even in college, with such a bleak job market they need to be able to - do well academically, have hobbies and skills, form close friendships, embrace new experiences and interests, get internships/jobs to get experience, network, develop skills, prioritize their physical, mental and emotional health - for future.

Getting into college is not the end-all. There is a whole lot more adulting needed once they go to college.

I respect your lived experience, and it’s clear your DS is very accomplished and will continue to do you proud! Just to provide a counterpoint, my family is Asian American, and our DS does not appear to have encountered a bamboo ceiling in college admissions - he got into his top choice HYPSM early. So many T5 applicants have stellar achievements that we consider his admittance to be luck, and would not have considered a denial to be due to bias.

Yes, the top colleges do take Asian Americans. It is not an even playing field compared to the other applicants they take with far lessar achievements because of hooks.

The point I am trying to make is that you need be your best and excel in all academics and EC parameters. After that you have to have a mindset and plan to succeed in whatever admission reality is. Admissions can be on luck and whim of AO, especially if you do not have hooks or network. But rest of life does not have to be left to luck alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

True.

Play for enjoyment, not a college EC edge.

It's fine for checking the leadership box. It's just that it's a very common EC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooks matter more than anything else at the top 20 schools, and especially the Ivies. A kid at the top of the class, with perfect grades and scores and impressive, unique ECs, will almost always lose out to a kid without those things who has a hook. I heard this so many times but did not fully absorb it without personal experience.

This is a false but common narrative on DCUM. Unhooked candidates do not lose out to "less qualified" hooked candidates. They lose out to other academically qualified candidates who align with an institutional priority.

Families refuse to accept that the top schools don't really care about 'peak academics'. Once an academic bar has been reached they care about their priorities which means that 4.0UW with a 1590 isn't any more interesting than 3.95UW with a 1540 in their admissions process. And they are correct, in real life those kids are academically indistinguishable.

An “institutional priority,” as you describe it, is a “hook.” You are therefore talking in circles.

I am not, you are thinking narrowly.

"Hooks" are institutional priorities but they are typically known things and merely a subset. You'll never really know most institutional priorities in any given year outside of the common ALDC ones that you are thinking of. You won't know that they want a kid from North Dakota, that they need an Oboe player, that the gender ratio isn't quite where they want it to be, that they are looking to add more kids into a major because they received and endowed gift for a sponsored professor, or that their new science center's expanded capacity means that they can be less selective for Chem majors this year, etc.
Institutional priorities aren't often known, can and do change year by year and are big driver of acceptances behind the scenes. They are wildcards.

Yes, but you are the one saying that, when people say “hooks,” they are really talking about institutional priorities. Some are, but most are not. Since that is the case, I see you as muddying the water.

Hooks are first gen/pell grant, very rare geographical places, legacy+ (legacy alone does not cut it anymore), faculty kids, recruited athletes (way more than a hook), semi-recruited athletes (“we think you will walk on” but sent word to admissions), VIPs/very connected people (especially in DC)/huge potential donors. That’s just about “it.” But that’s often well over 50% of a class, and well over 80% of those kids who get into top schools from certain metro private high schools.

So when a parent says that so and so got in because of one of those hooks, they know exactly what they are talking about and who these kids are, particularly at private high schools. To me, that happens far more than conflating a humanities kid as a “hook.”

Only to add: we do have a “hook” definition disagreement. North Dakota is a hook. Sure, it doesn’t guarantee admission, but all schools want that extreme geographical diversity. Not all schools want the oboe player. So, no, it does not really depend on the school and its semi-black box of institutional priorities that, for this particular year only, we are going to prioritize North Dakota. They always want it.

That's pretty funny. At our NYU tour the speaker specifically said their admitted class last year had kids from 100something countries and 49 states. And that if we knew anyone from South Dakota who was interested in NYU they had a great chance this year.

[Anonymous]

^ so yes that is an institutional priority haha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You really won't like what follows:

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

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What? Because maintaining a perfect 4.0 GPA in the face of intense competition doesn't reflect drive?

[Anonymous]

Run the desired school's Net Price Calculator and apply ED2 instead of RD. In most cases, the application deadline is the same and ED2 will provide a boost if all of the other academic stats, ECs, etc. are there.

Alleviates a lot of stress for a DC's senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had no idea University of Chicago was the most controversial school in America.

I barely knew about it a year ago.

It's only controversial for those who get rejected or wait listed. 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You really won't like what follows:

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

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

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

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

+1

For those who can meet the highly selective admissions threshold for the aforementioned D3 schools and can get recruited for a sport, congrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You really won't like what follows:

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

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

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

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

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

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

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

See Lacrosse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS is already in college but I want to post my thoughts for mainly Asian-American parents who will go through this process. For us, frankly, there were no surprises. We were very clear about what we wanted and what we were against. We knew quite early that the entire system is biased against Asian-American (especially males), and we prepared accordingly throughout his academic career. In fact, our entire planning was to make up for the various bamboo ceilings that he would encounter, and give him any edge regarding academics, ECs, health, support system, socialization, finances that we could.

- Financially - we saved for college and decided that our kids will never have student debt, even if we were subsisting on rice and beans.
- Prestige - we concentrated on the major/research/course offering and not the college. Eventually, he did not get into his top choice (MIT) but got into second choice (UMD) that he chose over other strong STEM schools like UMich and GTech.
- Academics - kid was in STEM magnet, had 4.0 GPA, 4.8 wGPA, 1590 SAT, NMS finalist, Foreign language for 5 years culminating in AP FL- from MS till HS, 12 APs with 5s. Strong ECs, scientific competitions, volunteer work and co-author on published paper after research internship. There were no faults in his resume and achievements.

What is important is not getting into a college, but, being able to thrive in college - academically, socially and mentally. They need to get a holistic education, they need to develop as an individual, they need to be able to strategize and plan for their future.

Even in college, with such a bleak job market they need to be able to - do well academically, have hobbies and skills, form close friendships, embrace new experiences and interests, get internships/jobs to get experience, network, develop skills, prioritize their physical, mental and emotional health - for future.

Getting into college is not the end-all. There is a whole lot more adulting needed once they go to college.

I respect your lived experience, and it’s clear your DS is very accomplished and will continue to do you proud! Just to provide a counterpoint, my family is Asian American, and our DS does not appear to have encountered a bamboo ceiling in college admissions - he got into his top choice HYPSM early. So many T5 applicants have stellar achievements that we consider his admittance to be luck, and would not have considered a denial to be due to bias.

Yes, the top colleges do take Asian Americans. It is not an even playing field compared to the other applicants they take with far lessar achievements because of hooks.

The point I am trying to make is that you need be your best and excel in all academics and EC parameters. After that you have to have a mindset and plan to succeed in whatever admission reality is. Admissions can be on luck and whim of AO, especially if you do not have hooks or network. But rest of life does not have to be left to luck alone.

this is true of all non-URMs.
and you should know as an Asian American, not to be the cliche STEM or CS major who plays chess.
Choose a major accordingly.
Don't be a cliche.
My half white and half Asian kids knew the playing field for what it is. You have to stand out from everyone else at your high school. Not just the Asians. But, everyone.
Then, you get into T20.
Or Ivies (for my older kid).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How being a high stats kids really doesn't matter much at all for top schools. The "holistic" voodoo and "institutional priorities" approach is really tough for kids that truly excel (1560+ SAT, over 10 APs with all fives on tests, Merit Finalist, etc) to handle. Stories of others getting shut out of all top schools they apply to are harrowing and stressful.

Yes.
I learned here: the stats just get your kid's application through the door. After you meet the threshold, for T10, they don't often "revisit" the stats because the kid met the requirements. But, it's then about EVERYTHING else and DC must stand out. The "story" of the kid is much more important to top schools than the stats. Our private's CCO, said to focus on the story in 11th grade and what makes DC different than everyone else.

Good grief.