Help DS Decide: Duke ED or Harvard/Princeton REA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Crew always

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Being a recruited athlete definitely helps. But the recruited athletes at schools like Harvard, Duke, and Princeton are also extremely qualified. In some cases, the athletes perform better than most of the student body academically. The big exceptions would be Duke's major D1 sports like basketball, football, etc. But if we're talking non-athletics, do a summer program like RSI or do research that gets recognized by Regeneron.

the age-old DCUM lie. Harvard admissions data is very clear that recruited athletes academic ratings are substantially inferior to those of other admitted students.

Is it a problem for schools to choose to admit some people with slightly lower GPAs and/or test scores if they are also in the top few percent at something the university, its community, and alumni base value? I don't see it as an issue as long as the students are contributing to campus life and earning their degrees. Most of these schools could fill multiple classes of students with just near perfect GPAs and scores but have intentionally not wanted to be so myopic.

At elite colleges, athletes themselves have also turned out pretty well as donors in many cases (see D3 athletes like the Koch brothers at MIT and Kravis at Claremont McKenna).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Crew always

You have to wake up way too early! I'd say fencing or squash over crew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Crew always

You have to wake up way too early! I'd say fencing or squash over crew.

They are all ridiculous “sports” except squash which is very tough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Crew always

You have to wake up way too early! I'd say fencing or squash over crew.

Swimmers are often up at 4 am or earlier at least where I'm from!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Being a recruited athlete definitely helps. But the recruited athletes at schools like Harvard, Duke, and Princeton are also extremely qualified. In some cases, the athletes perform better than most of the student body academically. The big exceptions would be Duke's major D1 sports like basketball, football, etc. But if we're talking non-athletics, do a summer program like RSI or do research that gets recognized by Regeneron.

the age-old DCUM lie. Harvard admissions data is very clear that recruited athletes academic ratings are substantially inferior to those of other admitted students.

Is it a problem for schools to choose to admit some people with slightly lower GPAs and/or test scores if they are also in the top few percent at something the university, its community, and alumni base value? I don't see it as an issue as long as the students are contributing to campus life and earning their degrees. Most of these schools could fill multiple classes of students with just near perfect GPAs and scores but have intentionally not wanted to be so myopic.

At elite colleges, athletes themselves have also turned out pretty well as donors in many cases (see D3 athletes like the Koch brothers at MIT and Kravis at Claremont McKenna).

+1 athletes are some of each elite colleges most successful alumni. I don't know if this counts, but I love the Social Network and the Winklevoss twins were on Harvard's crew team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Crew always

You have to wake up way too early! I'd say fencing or squash over crew.

Swimmers are often up at 4 am or earlier at least where I'm from!

Yes, I made the mistake of rooming with a distance swimmer my sophomore year. He was up and out before 6 most of the year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Being a recruited athlete definitely helps. But the recruited athletes at schools like Harvard, Duke, and Princeton are also extremely qualified. In some cases, the athletes perform better than most of the student body academically. The big exceptions would be Duke's major D1 sports like basketball, football, etc. But if we're talking non-athletics, do a summer program like RSI or do research that gets recognized by Regeneron.

the age-old DCUM lie. Harvard admissions data is very clear that recruited athletes academic ratings are substantially inferior to those of other admitted students.

Is it a problem for schools to choose to admit some people with slightly lower GPAs and/or test scores if they are also in the top few percent at something the university, its community, and alumni base value? I don't see it as an issue as long as the students are contributing to campus life and earning their degrees. Most of these schools could fill multiple classes of students with just near perfect GPAs and scores but have intentionally not wanted to be so myopic.

At elite colleges, athletes themselves have also turned out pretty well as donors in many cases (see D3 athletes like the Koch brothers at MIT and Kravis at Claremont McKenna).

Of course not. There are millions of smart people walking these campuses but the combination of being a top athlete with stellar grades is far and few between

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Crew always

You have to wake up way too early! I'd say fencing or squash over crew.

They are all ridiculous “sports” except squash which is very tough

You don't think crew is tough? It is one of the most physically demanding sports. Fencing is also difficult due to the footwork and coordination required in addition to its tactics.
No quotation marks needed. It isn't like we are talking about a game like golf, which many top schools are also good at!

[Anonymous]

FYI, full pay doesn’t matter. Just apply. Unless you from from Big 3 or top 10 kids at TJ, you will be waitlisted at Harvard or Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI, full pay doesn’t matter. Just apply. Unless you from from Big 3 or top 10 kids at TJ, you will be waitlisted at Harvard or Princeton.

Lol you said big 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI, full pay doesn’t matter. Just apply. Unless you from from Big 3 or top 10 kids at TJ, you will be waitlisted at Harvard or Princeton.

Big 3 is very tough for Duke too, they don't seem to like a lot of Big 3 kids. Duke loves TJ on the other hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI, full pay doesn’t matter. Just apply. Unless you from from Big 3 or top 10 kids at TJ, you will be waitlisted at Harvard or Princeton.

Most of the top schools are need-blind for domestics so full pay not mattering is a given. If you’re an international student, on the other hand, then it plays an actual role for many schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What EC wins the admission game? Fencing? Women’s crew? Squash?

Being a recruited athlete definitely helps. But the recruited athletes at schools like Harvard, Duke, and Princeton are also extremely qualified. In some cases, the athletes perform better than most of the student body academically. The big exceptions would be Duke's major D1 sports like basketball, football, etc. But if we're talking non-athletics, do a summer program like RSI or do research that gets recognized by Regeneron.

the age-old DCUM lie. Harvard admissions data is very clear that recruited athletes academic ratings are substantially inferior to those of other admitted students.

Is it a problem for schools to choose to admit some people with slightly lower GPAs and/or test scores if they are also in the top few percent at something the university, its community, and alumni base value? I don't see it as an issue as long as the students are contributing to campus life and earning their degrees. Most of these schools could fill multiple classes of students with just near perfect GPAs and scores but have intentionally not wanted to be so myopic.

At elite colleges, athletes themselves have also turned out pretty well as donors in many cases (see D3 athletes like the Koch brothers at MIT and Kravis at Claremont McKenna).

it's not a problem at all. The problem is pretending these recruits are on the same academic footing as other admits when they are not even close while at the same time trumpeting that other hooked groups are academically deficient.

The fact that athletes and donors turn out pretty well is meaningless because the more academically qualified students they displace could have done equally well.

[Anonymous]

I've been watching this thread grow to 15+ pages with some incredulity, given the state of college apps in 2022. Why do posters think this student particularly has a chance at any of these schools? It feels like other threads are all piling on, saying "no chance" even to kids with stellar stats. I have one of these students in my house and we are playing it very, very safe with applications. I wouldn't presume any of these schools are possible without a very spiky talent or hook. Maybe I've been reading too many DCUM College threads!