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: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 difference between the peer groups at a "T20" vs "T75" is minimal. There will still be a group of very smart, motivated kids at the T75 school. 90% vs 99+% is not that different (yes most on here think it is, but it really isn't). Also, once you enter the real world you will be working with people who went to #200 and #100 or did CC then #150. Yet somehow truly smart people manage to succeed in the workforce where they are surrounded by people of different "academic capabilities"....wonder how? Probably because it doesn't matter. The world is made up of different people and the "smartest people" are those who learn to work with everyone. That person who went to #200 might be a better communicator or better at motivating the team to be creative and find innovative ways to get the project done. Ability to work with teams of all different people is very important

[Anonymous]

Why does everyone on here care about GS? You can make a lot of money at any number of small no-name hedge funds or money managers.

My H makes over a million a year at a place I can almost guarantee you haven’t heard of. Less than a MD would make at GS sure but he only works 30-40 hours a week. QoL is very high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Love this!!! DCUM parents somehow think their top 1% kid ("sat score wise") is going to spend their life with only other top 1% kids---that's simply not how the real world functions.
Even at the 100-200 ranked schools, there are many really smart kids---kids that join the honors program, attend college without debt and often where they have to pay very little because they are way above the avg SAT/gpa. Your 99%+ kid will find a group even at those schools who are equally smart. In fact, it might be easier to rise to the top of the group and gain access to valuable research, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The thing is every year, scores and grades seem to get more and more inflated. For example, when I was in HS we did not get bonus points for APs or honors classes. Less than 5% of my graduating class even had an A average. Back in the late 70s, an SAT score in the 1400s easily put you in the top 1% even. Today something like 30% of my kid's class has a 4.0 and 1500+ is fairly common. I would argue that it isn't harder to get in jut harder to distinguish among the pool of applicants.

Because "back in the day", my HS had only 2-3 AP courses, none were STEM focused. Graduating class of 450 and we had 13 of us in Calculus our senior year (regular Calc---but I still was able to retain the info and pass out of Calc 1 in college during new student week testing). We registered for A SINGLE SAT, our prep was to make sure we had ID and enough #2 pencils to complete the test. That was it---one and done. A few of us took it a 2nd time or took the ACT as well. We didn't focus on test prep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is what DD said too and same applies to the AP test also.

IMHO the increased awareness of the role SAT plays and greater availability of preps like Khan Academy also play a role why we see more kids scoring high. This might be MC kids edging higher where before mainly UMC kids, already well aware and prepped, scored.
Covid showed, that for many poor students a lack even reliable internet access is a huge issue and with it access free prep sources. To me this is reflected in Collgeboards numbers showing a clear increase in scores with increased HHI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

What a crock. Students today are 10x smarter than they were in the 80s. Classes are more advanced and more challenging in high school than ever.

BS. I took "regular Calc" in HS---there was no AP in my HS. 4 months later during "new student week" I showed up to college, took placement tests (did not study even think about calc since HS ended) and got an "A" in Calc 1 and Calc 2 final exams, so placed into Calc 3. That would be Calc BC now, yet I sat with less than 20 kids in my HS calc class (the only one for over 500 seniors) and somehow learned the first year of college calc (fyi---I attended a T10 university with a top engineering school)
And somehow, I know at least 10+ people from HS who are doctors, dentists, and PHD in STEM areas who were not even in my Calc class (they took precalc senior year). And 10+ others who are engineers/CS. We were equally smart, we were just allowed to be kids and not forced to be more advanced than needed in HS---we were allowed to explore our academic interests without worrying a non-AP/non-Honors course would kill our chances at college...we took journalism/band/orchestra/photography/art, etc interesting courses to make us well rounded and explore interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

What a crock. Students today are 10x smarter than they were in the 80s. Classes are more advanced and more challenging in high school than ever.

BS. I took "regular Calc" in HS---there was no AP in my HS. 4 months later during "new student week" I showed up to college, took placement tests (did not study even think about calc since HS ended) and got an "A" in Calc 1 and Calc 2 final exams, so placed into Calc 3. That would be Calc BC now, yet I sat with less than 20 kids in my HS calc class (the only one for over 500 seniors) and somehow learned the first year of college calc (fyi---I attended a T10 university with a top engineering school)
And somehow, I know at least 10+ people from HS who are doctors, dentists, and PHD in STEM areas who were not even in my Calc class (they took precalc senior year). And 10+ others who are engineers/CS. We were equally smart, we were just allowed to be kids and not forced to be more advanced than needed in HS---we were allowed to explore our academic interests without worrying a non-AP/non-Honors course would kill our chances at college...we took journalism/band/orchestra/photography/art, etc interesting courses to make us well rounded and explore interests.

America has been kind to the top 10 pct of the population over the past 30 years. The top layer is thriving and very competitive. Resources and opportunities that used to be limited to fancy people have been broadly extended. The internet has contributed to this expansion of knowledge and opportunity to the upper middle class around the country. And meanwhile average ACTs nationwide have declined but when it comes to top schools, it is not as relevant if the average American kid got a 22 or 22.5 on the ACT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

What a crock. Students today are 10x smarter than they were in the 80s. Classes are more advanced and more challenging in high school than ever.

BS. I took "regular Calc" in HS---there was no AP in my HS. 4 months later during "new student week" I showed up to college, took placement tests (did not study even think about calc since HS ended) and got an "A" in Calc 1 and Calc 2 final exams, so placed into Calc 3. That would be Calc BC now, yet I sat with less than 20 kids in my HS calc class (the only one for over 500 seniors) and somehow learned the first year of college calc (fyi---I attended a T10 university with a top engineering school)
And somehow, I know at least 10+ people from HS who are doctors, dentists, and PHD in STEM areas who were not even in my Calc class (they took precalc senior year). And 10+ others who are engineers/CS. We were equally smart, we were just allowed to be kids and not forced to be more advanced than needed in HS---we were allowed to explore our academic interests without worrying a non-AP/non-Honors course would kill our chances at college...we took journalism/band/orchestra/photography/art, etc interesting courses to make us well rounded and explore interests.

+10. Amen. It stinks now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

What a crock. Students today are 10x smarter than they were in the 80s. Classes are more advanced and more challenging in high school than ever.

BS. I took "regular Calc" in HS---there was no AP in my HS. 4 months later during "new student week" I showed up to college, took placement tests (did not study even think about calc since HS ended) and got an "A" in Calc 1 and Calc 2 final exams, so placed into Calc 3. That would be Calc BC now, yet I sat with less than 20 kids in my HS calc class (the only one for over 500 seniors) and somehow learned the first year of college calc (fyi---I attended a T10 university with a top engineering school)
And somehow, I know at least 10+ people from HS who are doctors, dentists, and PHD in STEM areas who were not even in my Calc class (they took precalc senior year). And 10+ others who are engineers/CS. We were equally smart, we were just allowed to be kids and not forced to be more advanced than needed in HS---we were allowed to explore our academic interests without worrying a non-AP/non-Honors course would kill our chances at college...we took journalism/band/orchestra/photography/art, etc interesting courses to make us well rounded and explore interests.

If those are the standards you think should apply then no one on this board should ever pick at the academic standards of any admitted student. The bar is much higher today and if you were obsessed with defending your own intelligence, you’d admit that.

[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

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

+1. This is the point I was trump to make. And no one is conflating Goldman with Jane street. What PP said is on the $, if you can get a a PhD in Physics from Caltech you are way more marketable than a Columbia or Duke MBA - and no way are you waisting your time at Goldman.

[Anonymous]

Many international students at undergraduate level. Unfortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many international students at undergraduate level. Unfortunate.

They pay much higher tuition than your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many international students at undergraduate level. Unfortunate.

They pay much higher tuition than your family.

Maybe. We should be educating our citizens. L

[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

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

+1. This is the point I was trump to make. And no one is conflating Goldman with Jane street. What PP said is on the $, if you can get a a PhD in Physics from Caltech you are way more marketable than a Columbia or Duke MBA - and no way are you waisting your time at Goldman.

Right. But perhaps the banker who got 780 tends to do better than the banker who got 700.

[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.

Yep. Too much