Why is it so much harder to get into a top school now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:easy answer - more full pay international applicants

This, we could all stop fighting about hooked v, unhooked kids if most of the selective colleges weren’t admitting 20 percent plus international students.

Who by the way kick both the hooked and unhooked US kids a$$es in academics and hard work. At my alma mater, the valedictorian has not been an Ameican for more than a decade.

[Anonymous]

Student quality isn't actually better and they seem to do more that is geared toward admission rather than passion or impact.

It is so easy to apply to so many places now too. Why not try for those 10 reach schools if they give fee waivers or you can afford it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

Your view is so narrow. Kids with good test scores do not necessarily have “higher brain power” than kids with slightly lower that went TO. The TO kid may have chosen to spend their time doing other intellectual and interesting things rather than prepping and retesting for a 1600 super score. Also, people manifest intelligence in several ways, of which test taking is only one. Don’t be fooled by high test scores, especially with super scoring. IME, super intelligent kids are curious and studying for the SAT is very boring for them and they may not drill down to prep (which they probably need because many intelligent kids will overthink the questions and get them wrong).

A top Goldman Sachs guy once told a very prominent business school professor I know that the single best predictor of success there was Math SAT. Kinda makes sense huh? Ability to quickly solve relatively complicated math problems... A super bright kid who can't bring himself to prepare for the most important exam in his or her life that will position him for all kinds of great intellectual growth opportunities--that is not a kid who is especially likely to succeed in the real world.

This!! Thank you. I don’t care how “interesting” or “intelligent” or “underprivileged” your kid is. If they can’t put in the effort to prepare for a very important exam, they are neither all that smart nor that hard working and hence not a fit for my company and hiring.
I grew up poor and my parents couldn’t care less where I went to college, but you better believe that I studied for the SATs & SAT IIs, on my own, with no tutoring. I studied all summer before I took those tests because I knew that was my ticket out of poverty.
If there is a will, there is a way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

Your view is so narrow. Kids with good test scores do not necessarily have “higher brain power” than kids with slightly lower that went TO. The TO kid may have chosen to spend their time doing other intellectual and interesting things rather than prepping and retesting for a 1600 super score. Also, people manifest intelligence in several ways, of which test taking is only one. Don’t be fooled by high test scores, especially with super scoring. IME, super intelligent kids are curious and studying for the SAT is very boring for them and they may not drill down to prep (which they probably need because many intelligent kids will overthink the questions and get them wrong).

A top Goldman Sachs guy once told a very prominent business school professor I know that the single best predictor of success there was Math SAT. Kinda makes sense huh? Ability to quickly solve relatively complicated math problems... A super bright kid who can't bring himself to prepare for the most important exam in his or her life that will position him for all kinds of great intellectual growth opportunities--that is not a kid who is especially likely to succeed in the real world.

So all up need to know to succeed at Goldman is algebra 2. Got it.

That and no soul.

There is really one thing that is needed to succeed in any field, be it a creative career or a business one or any. Hard work. That’s really it. It helps if your IQ is above average too, but nothing can make up for the lack of hard work. You can go to Harvard with your test optional application, but trust me, if you don’t put in the work, you will amount to nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

All this says is the only people this poster things are high brain power kids are middle class white kids. Clearly has no problem with legacies and athletic recruits or donor kids. Just people she thinks might possibly be brown.

Do you actually think Black, Hispanic and FGLI kids are totally on par with their White/Asian counterparts at a given school? It doesn't make sense given that we know they are given preferential treatment. It would be like saying legacy kids and athletes are on par with non-legacy and non-athletes. If a certain group is given preference for something, by definition the academic quality should be lower. DEI is being done for social and political reasons- the schools want to give more opportunities to disadvantaged groups and they are willing to compromise on all kinds of things to make that happen. Just like when a school makes compromises because it wants to win a lacrosse championship.

So if that’s what you think why are you only complaining about one or two categories? Either complain about them all or none of them. It’s the blatant racism that bothers me- the idea that “oh we know colleges were so meritocratic back in the day because there were no black kids”

And I do think they are on par. The misconception is that college admissions is some sort of race where the “top” 1000 candidates win. It’s not nor has it ever been. Students pass a certain hurdle on academics and then are sorted from there. It’s not some reward that you earn.

Have heard from Ivy league professors that the DEI/FG push has resulted in a segment of the student population that represents a degradation of standards from years past. Like they really struggle. Tutoring is a huge thing now- I don't recall it when I was there in the 90s. This isn't racism, this is reality. There is more pressure on the schools to prioritize URM and FG than ever so obviously they are relaxing standards. A black kid just needs a few signs of potential to get in, whereas an Asian kid can't make any mistakes. We all know this is what is happening in real life.

Your unrelenting focus on black kids is amazing. You know who got tutored back in the 80s and 90s and still today? Athletes. White, recruited athletes. But only now is this some cause for alarm.

IME, athletes have incredible work ethic. I’d say probably rich donor kids get tutored the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Smh. What do they discriminate against exactly?! The not particularly bright and lazy kids, no? How hard is it to buy an SAT book and study it?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

All this says is the only people this poster things are high brain power kids are middle class white kids. Clearly has no problem with legacies and athletic recruits or donor kids. Just people she thinks might possibly be brown.

Do you actually think Black, Hispanic and FGLI kids are totally on par with their White/Asian counterparts at a given school? It doesn't make sense given that we know they are given preferential treatment. It would be like saying legacy kids and athletes are on par with non-legacy and non-athletes. If a certain group is given preference for something, by definition the academic quality should be lower. DEI is being done for social and political reasons- the schools want to give more opportunities to disadvantaged groups and they are willing to compromise on all kinds of things to make that happen. Just like when a school makes compromises because it wants to win a lacrosse championship.

So if that’s what you think why are you only complaining about one or two categories? Either complain about them all or none of them. It’s the blatant racism that bothers me- the idea that “oh we know colleges were so meritocratic back in the day because there were no black kids”

And I do think they are on par. The misconception is that college admissions is some sort of race where the “top” 1000 candidates win. It’s not nor has it ever been. Students pass a certain hurdle on academics and then are sorted from there. It’s not some reward that you earn.

I went to HYP a long time ago but diversity was still practiced. The smartest kids were obvioulsy the ones who got in mainly on academics. They tended to be geniuses of sorts. The kids who got an assist for being rich, athletic, black/Hispanic, legacy--they were generally smart but not of the same caliber with some exceptions of course. In some diversity cases as with athlete cases, I felt they really didn't deserve to be there from an intellectual/academic perspective--like the school pushed the envelope a bit too far. We don't have to pretend that kids chosen for diversity are on average going to be totally on par with kids chosen despite diversity.

So what? They’re still smart and can do the work.

The dumbest people I met in college were multi-generation legacies and donor kids. By far. And they were almost always white.

You are no longer an elite institution if the bar has been dropped to being able to get a B- in sociology. These schools are supposed to house the best and the brightest in the country. That is what makes them elite.

You think that’s where the bar was when Kennedy went to Harvard or Bush went to Yale? Your sole measure of a college’s elite status is how white and rich the students are.

100% agree. These schools were “elite” because the of the wealth and connections. Sure, they also picked some genius unconnected kids to round it out. The “best and brightest” has a different meaning than you think. It was never only the top test scorers. They want future connections and future donors. Those are not always (and have never always been) the smartest people from an IQ perspective.

Yes in the 50s and 60s they were country clubs but these schools became a lot more meritorcratic in the 80s and 90s. But in terms of eliteness, if the student body possesses neither fancy connections nor extraordinary ability, what makes it elite? If half the school is URM and FG's who are just smart enough to "do the work" and another quarter is athletes, it ain't what it used to be perhaps.

No they didn’t get any better. Thats the myth you keep perpetuating. You’re really looking for some sweet spot where white upper middle class enrollment was at its highest because those are the only kids you think deserve it.

To be honest I think the kids who really deserve it are the chinese immigrant kids at Stuyvesant who can run circles around most UmC white kids but end up at SUNY New Paltz because they can’t afford private and lack the preferred skin tone

My nice goes to Stuy (not Asian), and I agree with you except remember, the top colleges are all need blind now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all suggests that top 30 SLACS are really on their way to having really strong student profiles. All the kids who would otherwise attend an Ivy like large research university or a state flagship but got rejected despite high test scores will have more interest in LACs so they can get a high quality education. Otherwise they are bound for mediocre universities or second tier state schools.

Most high stat kids I know, including my own, don’t want a small remote school. They prefer a large research institution with good sports.

Right but they will end up at Michigan state instead of Michigan. Or BU instead of Wash U.

And the problem with that is??????

Nothing per se. But it was in the context of kids getting squeezed down to less prestigious large schools. At some point you recognize the education you receive as an undergrad at these schools is inferior to what you could obtain at a LAC that might accept you. I know some might say ok but a LAC isn’t fun but to that I say… ok so just go to UNLV.

Such a false statement.

So second tier state schools are the pinnacle of teaching excellence?

I have friends who teach at what I would consider 5th tier. She truly loves teaching and loves her students. She does publish, but not at the rate as her peers at, say, Big10 schools. I would have any kid take her classes 10 times out of 10. Really, the differences between the schools as valued by parents in these threads is so small, mostly predicated on things like endowments and how much federal grants these schools take in, as opposed to the actual classroom experiences.

No. The peer group at the top colleges is, or at least historically has been, way stronger. We all do better when we are surrounded by smart people.
Good for your friend though. But if given the chance, most people will choose the higher ranked school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like if a kid went into a Time Machine and went back five years, it seems with the exact same profile he or she would likely get into a more selective college. I understand kids are applying to more schools but that also means yield has to decline. But it seems there is a much larger pool of highly qualified applicants to top colleges or at least it is incrementally more difficult for a high stat kid to get accepted into his or her preferred school. Why is this?

Demographics is part of this. This will peak soon, 2007 was the peak birth year and there has been a steady decline since.

Also the combo of test optional and HS grade inflation has to be a factor. If so many kids have a 4.0 how do you differentiate? Part of they way they did was with the SAT/ACT, but now that is optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many people from other countries.

If you do not value attending school with international students, why are you trying to attend universities that do value having international students?

Not too many kids clamoring to get into Chinese college tho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

This! It is happening. I am hiring farther down the list. The labor shortage is real.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Huh, doesn’t seem like there’s a labor shortage with fewer summer internships and many rescinds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

What makes a school great, more than anything, is the quality of the peer group. Who am I to judge parents wanting their smart, high performing kids to be with other kids like that.

Here's the thing, though. There's very little difference in the 'quality of the peer group' between those at colleges with acceptance rates under 20% and those with acceptance rates between 20% and 50%, at least as measured by test scores. The list below shows colleges by the percentile of the median SAT score.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/page/3/

It would be really interesting if there were a way to see this sorted by ambition/accomplishment, though. That's what HYPS goes after first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

Your view is so narrow. Kids with good test scores do not necessarily have “higher brain power” than kids with slightly lower that went TO. The TO kid may have chosen to spend their time doing other intellectual and interesting things rather than prepping and retesting for a 1600 super score. Also, people manifest intelligence in several ways, of which test taking is only one. Don’t be fooled by high test scores, especially with super scoring. IME, super intelligent kids are curious and studying for the SAT is very boring for them and they may not drill down to prep (which they probably need because many intelligent kids will overthink the questions and get them wrong).

A top Goldman Sachs guy once told a very prominent business school professor I know that the single best predictor of success there was Math SAT. Kinda makes sense huh? Ability to quickly solve relatively complicated math problems... A super bright kid who can't bring himself to prepare for the most important exam in his or her life that will position him for all kinds of great intellectual growth opportunities--that is not a kid who is especially likely to succeed in the real world.

Your limited and narrow view is funny to see!

My husband works at Goldman and there are plenty of Kenyon, Michigan, Emory, and even schools you haven’t heard of if you’re not from there. Your friend may be speaking about a tiny subset at Goldman, say the IBD freshman class, but certainly not everyone.

Are you saying Michigan, Emory, and Kenyon don't have high math scores? Because I'm not understanding the reference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all suggests that top 30 SLACS are really on their way to having really strong student profiles. All the kids who would otherwise attend an Ivy like large research university or a state flagship but got rejected despite high test scores will have more interest in LACs so they can get a high quality education. Otherwise they are bound for mediocre universities or second tier state schools.

Most high stat kids I know, including my own, don’t want a small remote school. They prefer a large research institution with good sports.

Right but they will end up at Michigan state instead of Michigan. Or BU instead of Wash U.

And the problem with that is??????

Nothing per se. But it was in the context of kids getting squeezed down to less prestigious large schools. At some point you recognize the education you receive as an undergrad at these schools is inferior to what you could obtain at a LAC that might accept you. I know some might say ok but a LAC isn’t fun but to that I say… ok so just go to UNLV.

Such a false statement.

So second tier state schools are the pinnacle of teaching excellence?

I have friends who teach at what I would consider 5th tier. She truly loves teaching and loves her students. She does publish, but not at the rate as her peers at, say, Big10 schools. I would have any kid take her classes 10 times out of 10. Really, the differences between the schools as valued by parents in these threads is so small, mostly predicated on things like endowments and how much federal grants these schools take in, as opposed to the actual classroom experiences.

No. The peer group at the top colleges is, or at least historically has been, way stronger. We all do better when we are surrounded by smart people.
Good for your friend though. But if given the chance, most people will choose the higher ranked school.

"The peer group at the top colleges is, or at least historically has been, way stronger."

No. There are many smart people at all colleges in the top 100, both students and faculty, and the differences are miniscule. Here's the link I just posted above showing this to be true for students.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/page/3/

And here's another from the same site that shows the percentage of professors who have a PhD in their field at various colleges. Dartmouth and Penn are the only two Ivies in the top 42 (that's all they show), and schools like Lafayette, Ohio State, Kenyon and the University of Georgia are on the list.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/blog/4/

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

Very smart comment, and don't miss the bolded. A lot of people (especially on these boards) are stuck in this perspective on college admissions where all good students should want to go to the same 25 schools (and that the best students will all want to attend the same 5 schools). The truth is that there are a huge number of great schools out there and that the best first for your students will depend on their academic goals, social preferences, environmental preferences, etc.

Though part of this hangup is driven by parents who work in fields where that "T25" preference remains -- BigLaw, the top banks and consulting firms, politics. They work in fields where having certain academic credentials are, if not required, a huge advantage. And they don't understand that these same schools are not preferred for all fields. Your really have to understand your child's goals and think more expansively about what a "good school" is in that context.

Given that so many top students are going outside of these schools, I think these trends may change. They have already changed my colleagues' views on recruiting.

WAs with a recruiter from a major investment bank recently and they said that they are moving theirlist down from just Top 25 to more emphasis on Top 26-75. The same kids who a decade ago were always T25 are now 26 to 75.

All of this will have consequences in recruiting as you say. The whole shift will seem like it's happening in slomo but it's ver much happening.

Need to find the genuinely high brain power kids who used to exist mainly at top 25 but have been crammed down by DEI, FGIL, TO

All this says is the only people this poster things are high brain power kids are middle class white kids. Clearly has no problem with legacies and athletic recruits or donor kids. Just people she thinks might possibly be brown.

Do you actually think Black, Hispanic and FGLI kids are totally on par with their White/Asian counterparts at a given school? It doesn't make sense given that we know they are given preferential treatment. It would be like saying legacy kids and athletes are on par with non-legacy and non-athletes. If a certain group is given preference for something, by definition the academic quality should be lower. DEI is being done for social and political reasons- the schools want to give more opportunities to disadvantaged groups and they are willing to compromise on all kinds of things to make that happen. Just like when a school makes compromises because it wants to win a lacrosse championship.

So if that’s what you think why are you only complaining about one or two categories? Either complain about them all or none of them. It’s the blatant racism that bothers me- the idea that “oh we know colleges were so meritocratic back in the day because there were no black kids”

And I do think they are on par. The misconception is that college admissions is some sort of race where the “top” 1000 candidates win. It’s not nor has it ever been. Students pass a certain hurdle on academics and then are sorted from there. It’s not some reward that you earn.

I went to HYP a long time ago but diversity was still practiced. The smartest kids were obvioulsy the ones who got in mainly on academics. They tended to be geniuses of sorts. The kids who got an assist for being rich, athletic, black/Hispanic, legacy--they were generally smart but not of the same caliber with some exceptions of course. In some diversity cases as with athlete cases, I felt they really didn't deserve to be there from an intellectual/academic perspective--like the school pushed the envelope a bit too far. We don't have to pretend that kids chosen for diversity are on average going to be totally on par with kids chosen despite diversity.

So what? They’re still smart and can do the work.

The dumbest people I met in college were multi-generation legacies and donor kids. By far. And they were almost always white.

You are no longer an elite institution if the bar has been dropped to being able to get a B- in sociology. These schools are supposed to house the best and the brightest in the country. That is what makes them elite.

You think that’s where the bar was when Kennedy went to Harvard or Bush went to Yale? Your sole measure of a college’s elite status is how white and rich the students are.

100% agree. These schools were “elite” because the of the wealth and connections. Sure, they also picked some genius unconnected kids to round it out. The “best and brightest” has a different meaning than you think. It was never only the top test scorers. They want future connections and future donors. Those are not always (and have never always been) the smartest people from an IQ perspective.

Yes in the 50s and 60s they were country clubs but these schools became a lot more meritorcratic in the 80s and 90s. But in terms of eliteness, if the student body possesses neither fancy connections nor extraordinary ability, what makes it elite? If half the school is URM and FG's who are just smart enough to "do the work" and another quarter is athletes, it ain't what it used to be perhaps.

No they didn’t get any better. Thats the myth you keep perpetuating. You’re really looking for some sweet spot where white upper middle class enrollment was at its highest because those are the only kids you think deserve it.

To be honest I think the kids who really deserve it are the chinese immigrant kids at Stuyvesant who can run circles around most UmC white kids but end up at SUNY New Paltz because they can’t afford private and lack the preferred skin tone

My nice goes to Stuy (not Asian), and I agree with you except remember, the top colleges are all need blind now.

I heard MIT doesn’t even send reps to Stuyvesant. Need blind but they don’t let them in. The last thing these colleges want is to blow their financial aid budget on Asians. https://twitter.com/aaronchalfin/status/1596491695683960838?s=46&t=B550vMpWLE80VqyaBPg-Cw