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

[Anonymous]

That Trump and Elon are destroying my children's dreams and futures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sadly it's true. You need a degree in marketing these days. It's become absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you not see the summary of the Dartmouth AO talking about the importance of the kid's "story". I mean the AO are all telling us - openly - what they want. They want a story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Top unhooked kids at DC's school got into Amherst and Bowdoin ED this cycle. And a few into Chicago. Three into Hopkins. There is no hard and fast rule. If your kid loves a school and has the stats, go for it. It's always a crapshoot, but it could just work out. If not, those kids will always end up with good options RD. Not the end of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That Trump and Elon are destroying my children's dreams and futures.

Truth. I thought Dems were being dramatic but I guess I should have listened. I'm embarrassed to be a Republican. Financially, things feel bleak now and I'm reconsidering what we think we can pay for college for 3 kids.

[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.

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

Sure. Imagine then how hard it is to be an elite athlete and maintain a 3.5…..I’m sorry….It is what it is….I will and have taken the 3.5 athlete vs your kid hundreds of times……

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Sure. Imagine then how hard it is to be an elite athlete and maintain a 3.5…..I’m sorry….It is what it is….I will and have taken the 3.5 athlete vs your kid hundreds of times……

Oh my kid won't be applying to you, no worries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I’m not the PP to whom you responded, but the PP to whom *they* responded. My DS stayed true to himself in his application even though it was cliche - Asian American male, hardcore CS/Math nerd - and was successful. He also got lucky, I’m sure, but my point is that you can in fact be successful without playing games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I’m not the PP to whom you responded, but the PP to whom *they* responded. My DS stayed true to himself in his application even though it was cliche - Asian American male, hardcore CS/Math nerd - and was successful. He also got lucky, I’m sure, but my point is that you can in fact be successful without playing games.

Most applicants like this are successful.
Very good students will get admitted. The key is not to scapegoat URMs when one isn't admitted: this is happening a bit too much in the Asian American community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I’m not the PP to whom you responded, but the PP to whom *they* responded. My DS stayed true to himself in his application even though it was cliche - Asian American male, hardcore CS/Math nerd - and was successful. He also got lucky, I’m sure, but my point is that you can in fact be successful without playing games.

Most applicants like this are successful.
Very good students will get admitted. The key is not to scapegoat URMs when one isn't admitted: this is happening a bit too much in the Asian American community.

To be fair, I don’t think any of the Asian American PPs said anything about URMs specifically, much less scapegoating them. I certainly didn’t.

[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.

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

I wouldn't say that it doesn't. But, when compared to an athlete who maintained a 3.9 or so with similar rigor while devoting 25-30 hours a week to their athletics it does come up a bit short; especially if the athlete tested in a similar range as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I’m not the PP to whom you responded, but the PP to whom *they* responded. My DS stayed true to himself in his application even though it was cliche - Asian American male, hardcore CS/Math nerd - and was successful. He also got lucky, I’m sure, but my point is that you can in fact be successful without playing games.

Most applicants like this are successful.
Very good students will get admitted. The key is not to scapegoat URMs when one isn't admitted: this is happening a bit too much in the Asian American community.

To be fair, I don’t think any of the Asian American PPs said anything about URMs specifically, much less scapegoating them. I certainly didn’t.

No you did not but too many often do here on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Sure. Imagine then how hard it is to be an elite athlete and maintain a 3.5…..I’m sorry….It is what it is….I will and have taken the 3.5 athlete vs your kid hundreds of times……

while that's a good testament to their time management and stamina, it doesn't show me deep passion for a subject or discipline outside their sport. That elite athlete is putting their physical sport (hours practicing or games and travel) ahead of science labs, essays, debating, etc.. I think a tired, overworked elite athlete who is up at dawn practicing and focused on their sport will struggle to go toe to toe in a discussion seminar or write an essay with required depth of someone who wasn't just a B+ student in high school. Being a student-athlete in an elite sport in college is being an athlete first and a student is very secondary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That Trump and Elon are destroying my children's dreams and futures.

yeah my DS is scared. he got in ED to his "dream school" and now he's worried it won't be what he expected and it's too late to change colleges now. I told him let's watch the situation and if need be he can always transfer out of the US. but it's sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What has surprised you - that you were clueless about?

Fake virtue signaling and faux activism are highly valued in the process by the liberal arts majors that are the AOs at these schools. Tough road for great, but not elite, scholar-athletes and brilliant, but introverted kids.

+2 The AOs are often really young too. My DC met with their regional AO at a school we visited to ask a specific question about the application process. It was jarring to realize the AO was the same age as my DC’s older sibling - probably 23?