WSJ article on your child's chances of getting into an IVY are slim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid had a 4.0UW at TJHSST, a 1580 SAT, double digit number of APs with 5s on all the exams, state-level academic awards, club leadership, varsity athlete, and didn't get into HYPSM.

Should I call the WSJ?

Agree 100%. There are so many of these "average excellent" students like the subject of the article with all the grade inflation in HSs nationwide, and the vast majority won't get into the Ivy League. Straight A's, solid extracurriculars and top test scores just don't cut it for most students. My daughter graduated TJHSST in 2018, had a superscored 1600 SAT and was also a 2 sport varsity athlete with first or second team all conference honors (but not good enough to play either sport in the Ivy League D1) and was likely in the top 10% of the class at TJ. She had an excellent guidance counselor at TJ who gave her good advice about her chances and how she should present herself to the colleges she applied to. She too was shut out of Stanford and the 3 Ivys she applied to but she wasn't surprised and took it in stride. Still she had a fantastic outcome and was accepted to Duke, UChicago and UVA Echols and is now a few weeks from graduating from Duke w/a great job waiting for her. She wouldn't have traded her 4 years at Duke for ANY of the Ivys at this point. Outside of the covid year, she loved her 4 years at Duke and the group of friends she made there.

Congratulations to your daughter but with all of the changes in admissions such as TO, emphasis on recruitment of first-gen and/or URM students, increasing #s of applications, etc. the high school class of 2018 admissions aren’t relevant.

First gen students and URMs that manage to get in are qualified as hell. Thanks.

Most of the discovery from the Harvard case has shown the opposite

Nope.

Average scores and GPAs were all lower for URMs

That doesn’t say anything about qualification. In fact Ivies should be accepting way more bright motivated kids from underprivileged backgrounds.

The 70's forced bussing to create more integrated HSs created white flight among the affluent. Middle-class and poor whites who were unable to move to the suburbs or send their kids to private schools were forced to integrate. There are people who say the resentful white middle-class and the poor ushered in the war on drugs that caused the mass incarceration of black men in America.

I don't know if this theory is true or not. This theory is out there. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if the subject of the article is a good poster child for a broken admissions process or not.

But Harvard had 65,000 applications this year. In 1990, it had around 11,000 or 12,000 applications for approximately the same number of spots. In 2000, it had around 17,000 or 18,000 applications.

Something has happened to make a lot more applicants think they have a chance at it than ever before. Some of it is pandemic-related, e.g., HS grading policies becoming softer and TO. But that only accounts for the past 2 years. Even in the pre-Covid years, they had more than 40,000 applications.

Princeton is a similar story. in 1989, it had around 12,000 applications. in 2019, closer to 40,000, again for the same number of seats.

Why haven’t the elite universities increased their class sizes in the past 40-50 years? They certainly have the resources to do so in a way that would not diminish their educational or research quality (if anything, it would likely improve both). It’s artificial scarcity.

Why should they? Their rejection of good students leads those good students to make their universities better.

Well, I would start with it’s a moral failure on their part. Harvard’s 3.4% acceptance rate doesn’t mean the education it provides or the research it produces is 3x as good as when its acceptance rate was 10%. It doesn’t even mean the students they are accepting are more qualified than they used to be. It means they are missing out on a huge opportunity to increase their positive impact on society. Colleges exist as nonprofits because they are eleemosynary and are therefore mandated with creating a positive impact on society. Instead, they make access artificially more scarce than it should be because it suits their own needs.

Secondly, they could fill a their classes with deserving students many times over. By artificially capping the class size so low, it makes admissions more random, and does the opposite of what the colleges say they actually want - a cohesive, diverse cohort. They may get diversity in shallow sense, but by disregarding so many qualified applicants, their cohorts are not as robust as they could be.

HYPSM+ know that a big part of their appeal is their exclusivity. People value them so much because so many people want what them and cannot have them. They are afraid of diluting that brand by expanding their classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if the subject of the article is a good poster child for a broken admissions process or not.

But Harvard had 65,000 applications this year. In 1990, it had around 11,000 or 12,000 applications for approximately the same number of spots. In 2000, it had around 17,000 or 18,000 applications.

Something has happened to make a lot more applicants think they have a chance at it than ever before. Some of it is pandemic-related, e.g., HS grading policies becoming softer and TO. But that only accounts for the past 2 years. Even in the pre-Covid years, they had more than 40,000 applications.

Princeton is a similar story. in 1989, it had around 12,000 applications. in 2019, closer to 40,000, again for the same number of seats.

Why haven’t the elite universities increased their class sizes in the past 40-50 years? They certainly have the resources to do so in a way that would not diminish their educational or research quality (if anything, it would likely improve both). It’s artificial scarcity.

Why should they? Their rejection of good students leads those good students to make their universities better.

Well, I would start with it’s a moral failure on their part. Harvard’s 3.4% acceptance rate doesn’t mean the education it provides or the research it produces is 3x as good as when its acceptance rate was 10%. It doesn’t even mean the students they are accepting are more qualified than they used to be. It means they are missing out on a huge opportunity to increase their positive impact on society. Colleges exist as nonprofits because they are eleemosynary and are therefore mandated with creating a positive impact on society. Instead, they make access artificially more scarce than it should be because it suits their own needs.

Secondly, they could fill a their classes with deserving students many times over. By artificially capping the class size so low, it makes admissions more random, and does the opposite of what the colleges say they actually want - a cohesive, diverse cohort. They may get diversity in shallow sense, but by disregarding so many qualified applicants, their cohorts are not as robust as they could be.

HYPSM+ know that a big part of their appeal is their exclusivity. People value them so much because so many people want what them and cannot have them. They are afraid of diluting that brand by expanding their classes.

Agreed! Well said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course the WSJ picked a white girl from Texas for this so they could make it seem like the reason why she didn’t get in was because of “those” kids.

Yet a basically meh one in comparison to many HYPSM applicants. She is not a truly outstanding applicant when I think of the ones admitted in my DC's senior class this year, including published science research, running a relief operation for essential workers in COVID, etc. And for a kid focused on an Ivy, it's mystifying at why she wrote about her B grades and depression in her essay. College Confidential and nearly every college essay web site wave students off that topic, including "successful" stories of a student not getting a learning diagnosis until middle school/early high school and being able to turn around their learning trajectory after better understanding their strengths and weaknesses.

I think the girl's 300 plays she played in and/or "directed" goes to the issue of the veracity of her grandiose claim. PP's claim of HS classmate kids who are already published research scientists just takes it to another level. It's like forcing a 10 year old boy to tag along on a trek to the Himalayas to become the youngest ever. It's on the level of Greta Thunberg. It's cringey.

A close friend of mine has a kid who has a published research paper. It was 95% kid driven. It happens.

And did you call Greta Thunberg “cringey”?

How is it possible this girl even participated in 300 plays? First, timewsie that seems impossible. Also, you can't have leading roles if you are in 300 or directing 309 plays. What matters is quality, not quantity.

It's like the top student on here who also didn't get in anywhere whose mom said he completed "thousands" of volunteer hours (during the pandemic).
Colleges are not dumb. They know when things sounds embellished and this probably puts otherwise strong applicants right into the "no thanks pile".

Parents/kids don't think this through. They likely feel (in a panic) that if the kid can't stand out in terms of quality, maybe outlying quantity will work (even if it defies rational possibility).
All of this is insane.

[Anonymous]

Dartmouth in recent years floated expanding its class size and the alumni were livid. “"It is a small college, and yet there are those who love it!" I’d like to see some expansion, though sticking to its undergraduate focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course the WSJ picked a white girl from Texas for this so they could make it seem like the reason why she didn’t get in was because of “those” kids.

Yet a basically meh one in comparison to many HYPSM applicants. She is not a truly outstanding applicant when I think of the ones admitted in my DC's senior class this year, including published science research, running a relief operation for essential workers in COVID, etc. And for a kid focused on an Ivy, it's mystifying at why she wrote about her B grades and depression in her essay. College Confidential and nearly every college essay web site wave students off that topic, including "successful" stories of a student not getting a learning diagnosis until middle school/early high school and being able to turn around their learning trajectory after better understanding their strengths and weaknesses.

I think the girl's 300 plays she played in and/or "directed" goes to the issue of the veracity of her grandiose claim. PP's claim of HS classmate kids who are already published research scientists just takes it to another level. It's like forcing a 10 year old boy to tag along on a trek to the Himalayas to become the youngest ever. It's on the level of Greta Thunberg. It's cringey.

It was 30 plays. But -- former theater kid here -- I even question that. Was she the lead? If so, that's usually a pretty draining, time-consuming experience. If not, was she just rushing around jamming herself into small productions to pad her college application?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Now it largely means you won the diversity lottery. Which is fine but the degrees don’t carry as much weight.

This is bullshit and diminishes the hard work of so many kids.

No, it isn't.

It's understood that the Ivies largely see themselves now as engines of social change, and favor URMs over other students with stronger records. There are Ivies that, for years, have only admitted students from some DC-area schools who are minorities.

That's OK. The Ivies are private universities and they can change their admissions policies as they see fit. And their current approach may well be preferable to their approach in earlier periods where students were admitted simply based on their pedigree and social status.

But the flip side is that their current graduates don't garner the same respect as Ivy graduates from the 70s to early 00s. Many employers would just as happily hire someone from Maryland or Virginia Tech now as from Princeton or Brown. Sure, they remain incredibly selective, and they are still the brass ring for some families. But others fully understand that they aren't nearly as meritocratic as they were.

[Anonymous]

Those diversity statements are gonna be interesting once the SC tanks AA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now it largely means you won the diversity lottery. Which is fine but the degrees don’t carry as much weight.

This is bullshit and diminishes the hard work of so many kids.

No, it isn't.

It's understood that the Ivies largely see themselves now as engines of social change, and favor URMs over other students with stronger records. There are Ivies that, for years, have only admitted students from some DC-area schools who are minorities.

That's OK. The Ivies are private universities and they can change their admissions policies as they see fit. And their current approach may well be preferable to their approach in earlier periods where students were admitted simply based on their pedigree and social status.

But the flip side is that their current graduates don't garner the same respect as Ivy graduates from the 70s to early 00s. Many employers would just as happily hire someone from Maryland or Virginia Tech now as from Princeton or Brown. Sure, they remain incredibly selective, and they are still the brass ring for some families. But others fully understand that they aren't nearly as meritocratic as they were.

Mom, stop watching Newsmax!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now it largely means you won the diversity lottery. Which is fine but the degrees don’t carry as much weight.

This is bullshit and diminishes the hard work of so many kids.

No, it isn't.

It's understood that the Ivies largely see themselves now as engines of social change, and favor URMs over other students with stronger records. There are Ivies that, for years, have only admitted students from some DC-area schools who are minorities.

That's OK. The Ivies are private universities and they can change their admissions policies as they see fit. And their current approach may well be preferable to their approach in earlier periods where students were admitted simply based on their pedigree and social status.

But the flip side is that their current graduates don't garner the same respect as Ivy graduates from the 70s to early 00s. Many employers would just as happily hire someone from Maryland or Virginia Tech now as from Princeton or Brown. Sure, they remain incredibly selective, and they are still the brass ring for some families. But others fully understand that they aren't nearly as meritocratic as they were.

This is complete BS. What Ivy is only admitting students from DC schools who are minorities?
Interesting then that my daughter who started at an Ivy last year was amazed at the number of white and Asian wealthy kids she encountered. She had never before come across such extreme wealth. And a ton of private school kids. There are still not that many poor, first generation and Minority kids at these top schools. She also has met many recruited athletes. The football team alone at her Ivy has over 100 kids on the roster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For any kind of athletic recruiting, if the schools continue to recruit for athletics, it is impossible to get to the level of being recruitable without parents curating. A 10th grader can't decide in 10th grade that they are going to join club swimming (when they are old enough to drive themselves if their parents were never willing to) and then get a spot on a college team three years later.

Kids can and do decide to take up sports in high school all the time and some of them end up recruited at levels far beyond the Ivy League.

Unless you mean football, this does not happen ever.

Football is close to it unless you were just crazy gisted and never knew it. You could get into the pool for the first time in high school and find you set records. It does happen. Just not a lot.

NP. I know a kid (a junior) who has played only one year of football ever, in HS. Very good basketball player but not good enough to get D1 recruited. A big, strong kid, though. He’s now getting actively recruited for D1 football programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now it largely means you won the diversity lottery. Which is fine but the degrees don’t carry as much weight.

This is bullshit and diminishes the hard work of so many kids.

No, it isn't.

It's understood that the Ivies largely see themselves now as engines of social change, and favor URMs over other students with stronger records. There are Ivies that, for years, have only admitted students from some DC-area schools who are minorities.

That's OK. The Ivies are private universities and they can change their admissions policies as they see fit. And their current approach may well be preferable to their approach in earlier periods where students were admitted simply based on their pedigree and social status.

But the flip side is that their current graduates don't garner the same respect as Ivy graduates from the 70s to early 00s. Many employers would just as happily hire someone from Maryland or Virginia Tech now as from Princeton or Brown. Sure, they remain incredibly selective, and they are still the brass ring for some families. But others fully understand that they aren't nearly as meritocratic as they were.

It’s the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now it largely means you won the diversity lottery. Which is fine but the degrees don’t carry as much weight.

This is bullshit and diminishes the hard work of so many kids.

No, it isn't.

It's understood that the Ivies largely see themselves now as engines of social change, and favor URMs over other students with stronger records. There are Ivies that, for years, have only admitted students from some DC-area schools who are minorities.

That's OK. The Ivies are private universities and they can change their admissions policies as they see fit. And their current approach may well be preferable to their approach in earlier periods where students were admitted simply based on their pedigree and social status.

But the flip side is that their current graduates don't garner the same respect as Ivy graduates from the 70s to early 00s. Many employers would just as happily hire someone from Maryland or Virginia Tech now as from Princeton or Brown. Sure, they remain incredibly selective, and they are still the brass ring for some families. But others fully understand that they aren't nearly as meritocratic as they were.

It’s the opposite.

You forgot the /S

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now it largely means you won the diversity lottery. Which is fine but the degrees don’t carry as much weight.

This is bullshit and diminishes the hard work of so many kids.

No, it isn't.

It's understood that the Ivies largely see themselves now as engines of social change, and favor URMs over other students with stronger records. There are Ivies that, for years, have only admitted students from some DC-area schools who are minorities.

That's OK. The Ivies are private universities and they can change their admissions policies as they see fit. And their current approach may well be preferable to their approach in earlier periods where students were admitted simply based on their pedigree and social status.

But the flip side is that their current graduates don't garner the same respect as Ivy graduates from the 70s to early 00s. Many employers would just as happily hire someone from Maryland or Virginia Tech now as from Princeton or Brown. Sure, they remain incredibly selective, and they are still the brass ring for some families. But others fully understand that they aren't nearly as meritocratic as they were.

It’s the opposite.

You forgot the /S

Nope. It’s more meritocratic than ever before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now it largely means you won the diversity lottery. Which is fine but the degrees don’t carry as much weight.

This is bullshit and diminishes the hard work of so many kids.

No, it isn't.

It's understood that the Ivies largely see themselves now as engines of social change, and favor URMs over other students with stronger records. There are Ivies that, for years, have only admitted students from some DC-area schools who are minorities.

That's OK. The Ivies are private universities and they can change their admissions policies as they see fit. And their current approach may well be preferable to their approach in earlier periods where students were admitted simply based on their pedigree and social status.

But the flip side is that their current graduates don't garner the same respect as Ivy graduates from the 70s to early 00s. Many employers would just as happily hire someone from Maryland or Virginia Tech now as from Princeton or Brown. Sure, they remain incredibly selective, and they are still the brass ring for some families. But others fully understand that they aren't nearly as meritocratic as they were.

Sorry your rich white suburban kid has to compete now.