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

[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.

My son works at GS and his co-workers are from Princeton, Berkeley, Columbia, MIT and Caltech.

[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

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.

My son works at GS and his co-workers are from Princeton, Berkeley, Columbia, MIT and Caltech.

Here's where the leadership at GS and other top firms studied.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/wall-street/

They'll hire talent from wherever thay can get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think perhaps the biggest thing is the rise of Asian Americans in American society. This is an ethnic group that has gained tremendously in affluence and sophistication past 20 years. Asian families are producing top students and we see it in the class profiles of top colleges. They have raised the bar for everyone. Makes it harder to get into Stanford now but this is a good thing for our country. There are more top students than the historical list of “elite”’schools can handle. So it overflows to top 50/75.

Any way to quantify your point? Higher # or % of students from (affluent) Asian families?

I grew up in an area with many affluent Asian families with talented top students so that seemed true to me 30 years ago.

[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.

But they still discriminaye against Asian American applicants.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

This exactly.

+1 Although I'd add that you need to be able to work well with others, too, to be successful in many fields.

[Anonymous]

There is nothing wrong with academic “prepping.” It is no worse than basketball or football players “prepping.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think perhaps the biggest thing is the rise of Asian Americans in American society. This is an ethnic group that has gained tremendously in affluence and sophistication past 20 years. Asian families are producing top students and we see it in the class profiles of top colleges. They have raised the bar for everyone. Makes it harder to get into Stanford now but this is a good thing for our country. There are more top students than the historical list of “elite”’schools can handle. So it overflows to top 50/75.

Any way to quantify your point? Higher # or % of students from (affluent) Asian families?

I grew up in an area with many affluent Asian families with talented top students so that seemed true to me 30 years ago.

I am sure there is data but it’s kind of obvious. Asians as pct of top schools is much higher now. It’s not that they were excluded before it’s that they have grown in numbers and influence and resources. Asians started attending to schools in large numbers in the 80s and 90s and now their kids are applying. Economically Asians have made tremendous progress past 20-30 years - kids today are third rather than second generation Americans to a large degree. The main point is that the Asian population has grown and become more affluent. This is similar to how Jews drove up the quality of top schools a generation prior. Ivy League didn’t have many Jews in the 60s but this changed dramatically in the 70s-90s.

[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: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.

This exactly.

+1 Although I'd add that you need to be able to work well with others, too, to be successful in many fields.

You won't find any group more "hard working' than Asians - they routinely work 80-100 hours per week without any vacations for years!

As for 'able to work with others', no other group can surpass Asian people. You know, they are easy to get along with, obedient, don't cause trouble, docile, passive, quiet etc. etc. At least the generalizations about them. Best group for hard work and reliability and responsibility and causes least amount of troubles.

I wonder why Harvard University thought that Asians' personality was bad and terrible that they shouldn't be admitted based on the "personality" score? Doesn't add up. I guess it all depends on your biases and narrative you want to push.

[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: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.

This exactly.

+1 Although I'd add that you need to be able to work well with others, too, to be successful in many fields.

You won't find any group more "hard working' than Asians - they routinely work 80-100 hours per week without any vacations for years!

As for 'able to work with others', no other group can surpass Asian people. You know, they are easy to get along with, obedient, don't cause trouble, docile, passive, quiet etc. etc. At least the generalizations about them. Best group for hard work and reliability and responsibility and causes least amount of troubles.

I wonder why Harvard University thought that Asians' personality was bad and terrible that they shouldn't be admitted based on the "personality" score? Doesn't add up. I guess it all depends on your biases and narrative you want to push.

They didn’t actually think that, they just needed a fudge factor to justify imposing a quota so Asians wouldn’t become 75 percent of the class.

[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: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.

Most recent CDS data for 75th percentile math SAT
Michigan: 780
Emory: 790
Kenyon: 760

I thought it was obvious. I’m saying they are not top schools in the same way HYP, Stanford, MIT, Williams, and Amherst are. Do you understand now? (I’m sure going TO has helped these scores significantly too).

But were you saying IBD department still only had kids from those historically top schools?

Only, no. Are you more likely to be in the IBD freshman class coming from a school like that (+ Penn and a few others) than a school like Kenyon? A decade ago the answer was yes and I assume it probably still holds.

My point was that there are plenty of people at Goldman who didn’t do well on their Math SAT (if you go by undergrad alma mater 50 percentile) who ended up at Goldman. I know that the last few years with TO and super scoring every college has amazing stats, but if you got into college in the last 2-3 years you aren’t working at Goldman Sachs. You are still in college.

Students today know that Goldman is no longer the place to be precisely because the skills required to succeed at Goldman have never been top math scores. My son and his friends who are very good in math want quant or HFT jobs where strong math skills (way beyond SAT math) are required. Recently a friend who works at Golman told me that when they went for an info session at Penn, they had few students show up because another Fintech company had their session at the same time. Quant shops will take top math kids from Georgia Tech versus the kid at Harvard if the GT kid is great at math. This has happened to out friend's son. He was hired by Citadel from Georgia Tech, while another friend's son from Penn did not get into Citadel.

[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: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.

Most recent CDS data for 75th percentile math SAT
Michigan: 780
Emory: 790
Kenyon: 760

I thought it was obvious. I’m saying they are not top schools in the same way HYP, Stanford, MIT, Williams, and Amherst are. Do you understand now? (I’m sure going TO has helped these scores significantly too).

But were you saying IBD department still only had kids from those historically top schools?

Only, no. Are you more likely to be in the IBD freshman class coming from a school like that (+ Penn and a few others) than a school like Kenyon? A decade ago the answer was yes and I assume it probably still holds.

My point was that there are plenty of people at Goldman who didn’t do well on their Math SAT (if you go by undergrad alma mater 50 percentile) who ended up at Goldman. I know that the last few years with TO and super scoring every college has amazing stats, but if you got into college in the last 2-3 years you aren’t working at Goldman Sachs. You are still in college.

Students today know that Goldman is no longer the place to be precisely because the skills required to succeed at Goldman have never been top math scores. My son and his friends who are very good in math want quant or HFT jobs where strong math skills (way beyond SAT math) are required. Recently a friend who works at Golman told me that when they went for an info session at Penn, they had few students show up because another Fintech company had their session at the same time. Quant shops will take top math kids from Georgia Tech versus the kid at Harvard if the GT kid is great at math. This has happened to out friend's son. He was hired by Citadel from Georgia Tech, while another friend's son from Penn did not get into Citadel.

True math geniuses today have a range of options in finance that are unavailable to the average “top student.” Corporate finance jobs like at GS are for smart kids but not for kids who have the ability to get a math or physics PHD for example. The point is not that you have to be a math genius to excel at Goldman or on Wall Street generally, you just have to have a strong (and fast) mathematical mind and a quantitative orientation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. Schools know they need to drop their academic standards to maintain enrollment because of the demographic cliff. The trick was always going to be dropping standards without being called out on it or losing ground on the USNWR rankings. Along came COVID and an excuse to go test optional and they all ran with it. The bridge classes (after COVID and before the 2008 babies) are getting squeezed.

My first was born in 2009. Everything seemed easy. There were daycare openings all over the place her private school class had fewer students than before and after. I wonder if college apps will be similar in four years?

+1. With my 2006 child, daycare, nanny, school, even pediatrician appts were a challenge. Jump forward to my 2009 child and it was all a breeze.

[Anonymous]

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.

Who wants to go to a college that’s smaller than the high school they graduated from?

Different folks for different strokes. Who wants to fight over club memberships or just be another random kid among tens of thousands? Some kids will prefer small, some will prefer big, nothing has changed there. My point is the LACS will still be in a position to identify a genuinely academically strong kid while the big U's just wave in anyone with a grade inflated 4.0 (and squeeze out some of the applicants who historically would have had an edge in admissions). The 20-40 ranked LACS are setting up for a real quality boost, which has already been happening. They will start to resemble the top 10 more and more, similar to how Wash U now has Ivy stats.

Maybe, the larger schools are seeing much greater increases in apps and given the preferences I see among my daughter’s friends, I’m skeptical. It reminds much easier to get into all but maybe the T5 slacs than comparable large schools.

Apps increasing across the board but big state schools seem very hot right now. For a top student to choose Ohio State or BU or Northeaster over a top 15 SLAC seems ridiculous to me-just from a practical standpoint-notwithstanding the fun factor of a big school. But it's up to the kid.

I agree, but to each their own. My kids all wanted somewhat smaller (5-10K) size---one wanted the sports and feel of a huge state U but was smart enough to know they needed smaller class sizes and a more intimate environment in order to succeed. So they picked one with 8K and an amazing basketball school (so no football but the school spirit is still there).
However all my kids also did NOT want to be in the middle of nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good answers have mostly covered it:

1. More people chasing the same ~200,000 incoming seats in the classes at those top 75 schools
2. Test optional and common app make it easier to apply
3. Grade inflation
4. Plenty of full pay due to interest rates/economy/stock market
5. Change of focus to more URM, 1st gen and minority students
6. Application fees discounted or removed entirely to pump up "competitiveness" of a school
7. State laws limiting OOS enrollment make some schools seem even more exclusive/competitive (UNC, UCLA, Berkeley, etc.)

Sad that there is a perception that the school you attend truly dictates your life.

Funny thing is that it is not harder across the universe, just the same 75 schools. If you want to attend school #134 on those arbitrary rankings and have the grades, you will be admitted, then it's just a question of whether the finances pencil out for your family.

And most often, "#134" will give your top student top merit. So the finances will mean minimal to no loans for college. Graduate debt free. Be "top dog" at college, so you are in honors program, able to do research at large state school (where most undergrads are not), etc. Plenty of very smart people recognize this and do exactly that.
Others keep complaining and struggle to get into T25 and then deal with mental anguish when they don't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because poor kids may not have the free time to "study it". They may be working, taking care of kids in the family, taking care of grandparents, etc. Also, buying a book and studying it is NOT the best way to prep for the SAT. Best way is a 1-1 private tutor who has you do an initial test, then helps you study based on your areas of need. they teach you the tricks as well---half the test is about knowing the tricks and methodology and a good tutor can get your scores up 100-250 in only 4-8 hours of tutoring and maybe 1-2 more practice tests to see what you have accomplished.
That takes time and MONEY.