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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, it's not that difficult to figure it out. For example: my kid applied ED1 to a T10 school. It's a Big10 school with many sports (including Football). So yes, of the ultimate freshman class of ~2K, it should be obvious that 100-140 will be athletes, who are typically admitted during ED, which is typically about 10-15% of total ED acceptances. And I'd guess another 10-15% are "highly hooked applicants", as this school has a ton of famous (and wealthy) alums, whose kids, if they have the stats will likely get in if they apply. So that means 25-30% of the ED slots are going to "hooked applicants" or athletes. Not that difficult to figure out. That is why it's always said that ED doesn't help your kid as much as you think. Sure the 25% acceptance rate seems higher than 5% (and it is) but it's not really 25%, it's closer to 15% (I'm not going to do the exact math)

ANd yes, 1200 of the 2K freshman are taken from ED, just like at many T25 schools. They want to manage yield, they know people apply to 10-20 schools, so if you are willing to commit with ED, they will happily fill 50%+ of their class that way. They need to have 2K students attending, not 2200, not 1800. ED is a way to manage that yield.

But none of this is a shock. Simple research will tell you that. It's like that at most schools.

[Anonymous]

I stopped paying attention to rankings some time ago. They no longer reflect intelligence—despite what some people want to believe—nor do they accurately represent talent, ability, or an individual’s socioeconomic background. Admissions have become too distorted for that. It’s unfortunate, because many of the faculty and educational opportunities at these schools are genuinely valuable. Graduate programs, particularly PhDs, may still be largely merit-based, but they represent a small minority.

People push their children toward a narrow set of schools (Ivy, Ivy-plus, or top tech institutions) for many different reasons. Still, I find it somewhat pathetic that people feel the need to argue or bicker to “prove” the value of their education. Educational outcomes should speak for themselves, especially as society is undergoing rapid change. Knowledge is no longer a proprietary asset of higher education. For those who believe attending a specific school is primarily about access to knowledge or resources, it’s worth reconsidering. It is not the only path to success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well yes, if you have a 1300/3.5UW and only 3 AP courses (and your school Offers15+) you are not "qualified", but that is for the school to decide ultimately. Fact is 90%+ of the applicants to most T25 are "highly qualified" and the school would love to accept. But they cannot. It's only a small portion who actually are not qualified. Just because you think a kid with a 1500 is not qualified doesn't make it true. They are just as qualified as your 1580 kid because the school cares about more than just one test score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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+.

Definately. I'm not a "crazy". I prepped my kid for the fact they might not get into their ED1 and that reaches are just that. And even sometimes Targets are not a hit. But we picked targets well (kid was at/+ 75% for all targets) so my kid had success. We also picked targets that had 25-30% + acceptance rates---because 20.5% acceptance rates does not make a school a target really, it's still basically a reach.

And if you have a well balanced list, you will have success. And can find merit if needed. We didnt' need it yet my kid had multiple choices that were ranged from 30K-50K, and then a few at 90K.

[Anonymous]

Parents, find a place that your kids will grow and have long term success. Those aren't something measurable by their "numbers" now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I can afford it. I don't think it's strange at all to consider bang for the buck. Yeah there are people who are so rich they don't have to care at all about bang for the buck, but I'm not that wealthy. I can pay for a T10 but I'd "notice" paying that amount of money. It didn't come to that because DS got in ED at UVA. In my view paying in-state at UVA is a no-brainer compared to full pay at BC or Villanova (which we actually looked at, they were nice, but not $250,000 nicer than UVA in my opinion and in my son's opinion).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, it's not that difficult to figure it out. For example: my kid applied ED1 to a T10 school. It's a Big10 school with many sports (including Football). So yes, of the ultimate freshman class of ~2K, it should be obvious that 100-140 will be athletes, who are typically admitted during ED, which is typically about 10-15% of total ED acceptances. And I'd guess another 10-15% are "highly hooked applicants", as this school has a ton of famous (and wealthy) alums, whose kids, if they have the stats will likely get in if they apply. So that means 25-30% of the ED slots are going to "hooked applicants" or athletes. Not that difficult to figure out. That is why it's always said that ED doesn't help your kid as much as you think. Sure the 25% acceptance rate seems higher than 5% (and it is) but it's not really 25%, it's closer to 15% (I'm not going to do the exact math)

ANd yes, 1200 of the 2K freshman are taken from ED, just like at many T25 schools. They want to manage yield, they know people apply to 10-20 schools, so if you are willing to commit with ED, they will happily fill 50%+ of their class that way. They need to have 2K students attending, not 2200, not 1800. ED is a way to manage that yield.

But none of this is a shock. Simple research will tell you that. It's like that at most schools.

Great description of ED and percentages. Thank you. I've read that there is no difference in accepted percentage in ED vs. RD at some schools and your description lays this out succinctly. Is this why sometimes high stats kids do better (or OK) in RD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, it's not that difficult to figure it out. For example: my kid applied ED1 to a T10 school. It's a Big10 school with many sports (including Football). So yes, of the ultimate freshman class of ~2K, it should be obvious that 100-140 will be athletes, who are typically admitted during ED, which is typically about 10-15% of total ED acceptances. And I'd guess another 10-15% are "highly hooked applicants", as this school has a ton of famous (and wealthy) alums, whose kids, if they have the stats will likely get in if they apply. So that means 25-30% of the ED slots are going to "hooked applicants" or athletes. Not that difficult to figure out. That is why it's always said that ED doesn't help your kid as much as you think. Sure the 25% acceptance rate seems higher than 5% (and it is) but it's not really 25%, it's closer to 15% (I'm not going to do the exact math)

ANd yes, 1200 of the 2K freshman are taken from ED, just like at many T25 schools. They want to manage yield, they know people apply to 10-20 schools, so if you are willing to commit with ED, they will happily fill 50%+ of their class that way. They need to have 2K students attending, not 2200, not 1800. ED is a way to manage that yield.

But none of this is a shock. Simple research will tell you that. It's like that at most schools.

It shouldn't be a shock and yet like many other aspects of life people over estimate their chances of success and under estimate their risks. It is just that unlike the bad luck of getting cancer in the college admissions arena people think some less deserving kid "stole" their kid's spot. They can't seem to grasp the simple reality of the numbers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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+.

How do you score "much higher" than a 1550+?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, it's not that difficult to figure it out. For example: my kid applied ED1 to a T10 school. It's a Big10 school with many sports (including Football). So yes, of the ultimate freshman class of ~2K, it should be obvious that 100-140 will be athletes, who are typically admitted during ED, which is typically about 10-15% of total ED acceptances. And I'd guess another 10-15% are "highly hooked applicants", as this school has a ton of famous (and wealthy) alums, whose kids, if they have the stats will likely get in if they apply. So that means 25-30% of the ED slots are going to "hooked applicants" or athletes. Not that difficult to figure out. That is why it's always said that ED doesn't help your kid as much as you think. Sure the 25% acceptance rate seems higher than 5% (and it is) but it's not really 25%, it's closer to 15% (I'm not going to do the exact math)

ANd yes, 1200 of the 2K freshman are taken from ED, just like at many T25 schools. They want to manage yield, they know people apply to 10-20 schools, so if you are willing to commit with ED, they will happily fill 50%+ of their class that way. They need to have 2K students attending, not 2200, not 1800. ED is a way to manage that yield.

But none of this is a shock. Simple research will tell you that. It's like that at most schools.

You can just Northwestern. Also, you need to divide the available spots by 2 since they are aiming for 50/50 gender parity. A lot people forget this step.

[Anonymous]

I found this teen's story on reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1qis7ih/got_into_ivy_ed_dont_want_to_go/

"But emotionally I hate how controlled my life has been. My mom made me start working on a project with my little sister and it's really flaring tensions in the house. She didn't even ask if I'd do it; it was an implicit assumption that I'd help my family out for college apps because they're soooo important. I thought I'd be done with all the fake college passion stuff when I got in. Now I have to work with my sister who can't do anything and everything falls to me. I never asked for any of this. I'm mostly doing it out of responsibility and a desire to make my mother happy right now, but it's not like I could stop if I said no."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found this teen's story on reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1qis7ih/got_into_ivy_ed_dont_want_to_go/

"But emotionally I hate how controlled my life has been. My mom made me start working on a project with my little sister and it's really flaring tensions in the house. She didn't even ask if I'd do it; it was an implicit assumption that I'd help my family out for college apps because they're soooo important. I thought I'd be done with all the fake college passion stuff when I got in. Now I have to work with my sister who can't do anything and everything falls to me. I never asked for any of this. I'm mostly doing it out of responsibility and a desire to make my mother happy right now, but it's not like I could stop if I said no."

Poor folk. Once school starts, it will become clear how difficult success is without intrinsic inner drive.