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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That’s why it’s important to tailor the application for the reader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The humanities kids get in to T25 with lower stats, especially if they have ANY sort of well-I regarded honor or award.

Makes you sound like they are undeserving when the truth of the matter is that they should be favored even more than they are, to stem (pardon the pun) the STEM+business+econ trade school tide. I’d go so far as to say they merit a tuition reduction, as they cost almost nothing to teach and get no benefit from a school’s latest science center in the hundreds of millions.

+1

T25 schools are much more than STEM diploma factories …..

The nation needs more STEM graduates not snowflakes who get luxury degrees in humanities bs.

Yes, our car dashboards aren’t complicated enough. Please have your STEM genius add a few hundred more useless features to the control screen. Like maybe a way to control the barometric pressure inside the car, or a vibrating gas pedal to massage my right foot.

Good lord. Next you or a family member receive some advanced medical treatment (developed by one of the geniuses you deride), I hope you think of this post.

+100

[Anonymous]

What’s surprising, yet not really, is how far parents and students are willing to go to curate their children’s activities just to gain admission to these prestigious institutions. It’s all about the status and the prestige. It’s honestly insane what people will endure just to earn that coveted sticker.

[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

What?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Maroons_football

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s surprising, yet not really, is how far parents and students are willing to go to curate their children’s activities just to gain admission to these prestigious institutions. It’s all about the status and the prestige. It’s honestly insane what people will endure just to earn that coveted sticker.

I don't think it's that. Maybe I'm naive. If you have a kid interested in a niche thing, this post reassures you that that random weirdo quirky thing might become your kid's "texture."

If you don't have a quirky kid interested in wacky hobbies, well its hard to use this list tbh to curate that. The non-quirky kid is not going to excel at origami and enter those national competitions.

For T20, it's not enough to do these things. It's about tying it into something bigger and/or having an impact. The kid really needs to have vision and drive for that. The parent can't do it alone. Example: letterpress and bookbinding alone is not going to get your kid into a T20 for humanities - lol. However, if your kid is really into archives (and there are a LOT of ways to evidence that) and into these hobbies, well, sure makes sense. But you don't need this board to tell you.

If you just throw these "hobbies" into an ordinary kid's EC list all on its own, it will be a red flag. But so will so many other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s surprising, yet not really, is how far parents and students are willing to go to curate their children’s activities just to gain admission to these prestigious institutions. It’s all about the status and the prestige. It’s honestly insane what people will endure just to earn that coveted sticker.

I don't think it's that. Maybe I'm naive. If you have a kid interested in a niche thing, this post reassures you that that random weirdo quirky thing might become your kid's "texture."

If you don't have a quirky kid interested in wacky hobbies, well its hard to use this list tbh to curate that. The non-quirky kid is not going to excel at origami and enter those national competitions.

For T20, it's not enough to do these things. It's about tying it into something bigger and/or having an impact. The kid really needs to have vision and drive for that. The parent can't do it alone. Example: letterpress and bookbinding alone is not going to get your kid into a T20 for humanities - lol. However, if your kid is really into archives (and there are a LOT of ways to evidence that) and into these hobbies, well, sure makes sense. But you don't need this board to tell you.

If you just throw these "hobbies" into an ordinary kid's EC list all on its own, it will be a red flag. But so will so many other things.

this should have been posted in the weird quirky EC post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is arguing that athletes aren't super motivated and focused. But so are kids who maintain high GPAs in really hard classes, or the kid who volunteers 800 hours a year, or the musician, or someone who has to work to support their family.

I think it's helpful to remind EVERYONE that there are MANY different admissions processes happening simultaneously and different groups of students are held to different standards. It's the school's right to admit whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

Just be aware that there are different roads to the same place.

Yes, but those others aren't consistently accused of being "unworthy" or of having "unfair advantages" by certain groups the way that athletes are 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:

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

What?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Maroons_football

PP; I stand corrected. I knew that it was dropped but didn't know that it was reinstated.

[Anonymous]

End of college or end of admissions gamble?

[Anonymous]

How University of Maryland lets people in from North Carolina and Virginia with lower GPAs and Test Score than in state people.

But UNC, UVA want much higher test scores and GPAs from OOS people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Maroons_football

PP; I stand corrected. I knew that it was dropped but didn't know that it was reinstated.

It has been there since the early 1970s. It is not like they just recently added a D3 football team!

[Anonymous]

You can in fact be a white male non-athlete that is wealthy, but not wealthy enough to be a donor, and get in to a top school. People would say...no that's impossible. All the spots are taken by x y or z.

Take a rigorous schedule in all 5 subject areas, get some leadership, do a sport at your school that you enjoy (or debate or theatre or dance). Get all or nearly all As and a good SAT score. Yes, i know that last part is hard, but you would think from reading this and other internet sources that white males have no chance. Simply not true. The ball's in your court. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Anonymous]

That high performing kids from high performing high schools have a harder time getting into UMD than lower performing kids from lower performing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How University of Maryland lets people in from North Carolina and Virginia with lower GPAs and Test Score than in state people.

But UNC, UVA want much higher test scores and GPAs from OOS people

UNC, in particular, is ridiculous this way. I really don't understand the hype there.

The UNC basketball program is crap - they jumped the shark a few years ago and can barely keep up in the ACC, which is saying a lot these days.

And for those who really want to be at a big school in North Carolina, NC State is excellent with a very strong Honors program.

[Anonymous]

Naviance, a better tool than National acceptance rates and even CDS reports, is still flawed. We relied on Naviance to identify reaches, targets, and safeties, based on past years’ data, but we were wrong.