Ivy League results so far? who is making it in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But they'd get the best team. Isn't that the most important thing?

No they wouldnt. There are NCAA limiting the number of athletes the coach cant carry a roster so in the end one of the kids would get cut from the team once they enrolled.

And if that started happening on a regular basis it would harm the coach's ability to attract good players ultimately harming the team. In general kids who go to the ivies and play sports are NOT doing simply for an admissions scam; they are very accomplished and want to compete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But they'd get the best team. Isn't that the most important thing?

No they wouldnt. There are NCAA limiting the number of athletes the coach cant carry a roster so in the end one of the kids would get cut from the team once they enrolled.

And if that started happening on a regular basis it would harm the coach's ability to attract good players ultimately harming the team. In general kids who go to the ivies and play sports are NOT doing simply for an admissions scam; they are very accomplished and want to compete.

*NCAA rules limiting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale EA. Top of class at Montgomery County public school (not a W), top test scores, outstanding extracurriculars including fluent Mandarin and Spanish, published political papers, varsity sports letter, several jazz bands, NASA internship etc.

Adding--totally unaffiliated with Yale. No legacy ties or relations and no minority status.

Stop trying to draw attention to your cute little story. No one has commented on it because no one believes it.

Believe it especially since its a non-W.

Again it matters what school you are at because schools want diversity on multiple levels including school/geographic diversity

My guess - Blair HS.

It's absolutely true! The high school is BCC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to pull it all together with the "profoundly gifted" student who is in at Penn and Princeton, if that poster is not a troll, I'm assuming that the "formal letter" referred to is a "likely letter" from Penn not related to athletics. The written statement from the coach, which is not binding, would be indicating that the kid can play his sport at Penn as a walk on. The potential choice of Swarthmore over the other options is too confusing for me to make sense of. It's definitely not a place a serious athlete would pick over Princeton or Penn.

Further, no "profoundly gifted" student would choose Swarthmore over Princeton. Penn? Meh

My guess is that the very top SLACs are picked over Ivies, including Princeton, fairly often. At the Swarthmore, Williiams, Amherst level, I assume that happens fairly often---and i can see the attraction of those schools with a couple thousand intense undergrads as the entire campus versus some big research university with five to ten times as many students.

Probably not as many as you think. Especially against HYPS. I'd think no more than a handful, if money wasn't a factor.

Research opportunities are far better at Princeton than Swarthmore. No knock on Swarthmore as it's a fantastic school, but there's a reason Princeton is Princeton and Swarthmore is not. For anyone wanting the benefits of a school with a strong undergraduate focus but with the stellar research and faculty of a larger university you'd be really silly to turn down Princeton for Swarthmore. For the same reason someone wanting to play higher caliber (recruitment quality) sports in college would be silly to turn down either Penn or Swarthmore for Princeton.

Maybe your kid is the Swattie model and will fit in with Swarthmore perfectly and that calls to him over Princeton, but one does then wonder why he didn't apply ED to start with. Otherwise just be realistic about what Swarthmore can offer that Princeton doesn't. And, of course, let's see if Swarthmore does accept him because if he isn't an African American genius then there's no guarantees. Swarthmore may write him off as a lost cause, someone most likely to be accepted by an Ivy and this reject him to protect their yield.

As a professor, I think that this is a false comparison. Swarthmore is solely focued on undergraduates, whereas at Princeton undergraduates compete with graduate students for faculty time. Also, the culture at Swarthmore is much more academic than Princeton. According to the NSF, a significantly higher percentage of Swarthmore students end up getting PhDs compared to Princeton. (Swarthmore with nearly 23% of alum eventually earning PhDs is #3 according to the NSF; Princeton falls just outside the top 10 at #11 with 14%.) Swarthmore is well known among PhD programs as a top caliber feeder into doctoral programs. Princeton students do well, of course, but with the exception of a few majors (e.g., math) students don't choose Princeton because they're planning on getting PhDs. Students who do plan on competing a doctorate OTOH do choose Swarthmore--or Reed, Carleton. The best SLACs do a superior job of getting their students into doctoral programs.

Meh.

I think there's a lot of self-selection going on here that distorts the picture. Having seen both the top LAC environment and a major Ivy school, the latter had many more research opportunities available, with bigger departments, much bigger libraries, and many more specialist niches available for research. More money for funding, as well. Comparing Princeton and Swarthmore also means comparing the faculty between the two schools and Princeton has many more big names and that means potential opportunities to study with and even research for a big name.

Princeton is not a huge school either. Swarthmore has about 1600 undergrad compared to 5400 at Princeton (and Princeton has a further 3,000 grad students). It may seem much bigger, but it really won't feel like that. I do think Swarthmore is a fabulous school. And no one is hurt going to one over the other. At the same time I'd be careful about so decisively setting my heart on a PhD and researching with professors when you haven't even entered college! And the PhD track is one which many students regret going down. The major advantage of going to a bigger school, besides more resources, is that you have more opportunities in majors, courses, and yes, meeting people. A LAC, due to their small sizes, is just going to be much more limited.

Besides, if this woman's son is the genius she claims he is with likely letters prior to admissions, he will be one of the top of his class at Princeton (or Penn or any other big school) and in front of the queue to study and research with big name Princeton professors, so I would actually argue with much greater resources available to him at a bigger school, he should be looking at Princeton if he wants to make the most of researching as an undergrad with ultimately a PhD in sight.

Having had experiences at both Swarthmore, Chicago, and Princeton, I’d recommend Swarthmore for an unparalleled undergraduate experience and then a research university for graduate school. If you don’t plan on graduate school, I’d say, sure, go to a university. Smaller does not mean fewer opportunities—especially when you’re talking about schools like Swarthmore, Carleton, Williams, etc. On the contrary, smaller translates into greater accessibility to faculty, funds, clubs, etc. You can experience both a college and a university if you start off at a SLAC and then go onto a uni, but if you start off at at uni, you’ll never have the unique experience of a SLAC education.

I started out at a top LAC (AWS) and transferred to an Ivy. I didn't find the LAC environment that special. It was small and somewhat claustrophobic. The social life was dull. The school was excellent and the teachers were excellent, but the resources and opportunities that came with a bigger school really did make a difference even if I do admit that the overall quality of teaching was slightly lesser (say, 95% of the LAC quality). I remember looking at the course catalogue of my new Ivy and being completely blown away by the classes I could take. And I met a lot more interesting people from all over the country and the world. The Ivy students felt more grown up. I've tried to put my finger on it and I think it's the kids embracing a bigger environment that made it seem more grown up, along with kids who came from non-trad backgrounds that offered a different perspective of the real world. By contrast the LAC felt like a continuation of an expensive boarding school. My LAC was, at least at the time, solidly white and upper middle class with a few token minorities. It's probably more diverse now, so maybe things are different.

Many of my Ivy classmates went on to do PhDs at top programs across the country so I don't see anyone hurt in this regards.

Then again, we're talking three decades ago so take my opinion for what you think it's worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to pull it all together with the "profoundly gifted" student who is in at Penn and Princeton, if that poster is not a troll, I'm assuming that the "formal letter" referred to is a "likely letter" from Penn not related to athletics. The written statement from the coach, which is not binding, would be indicating that the kid can play his sport at Penn as a walk on. The potential choice of Swarthmore over the other options is too confusing for me to make sense of. It's definitely not a place a serious athlete would pick over Princeton or Penn.

Further, no "profoundly gifted" student would choose Swarthmore over Princeton. Penn? Meh

My guess is that the very top SLACs are picked over Ivies, including Princeton, fairly often. At the Swarthmore, Williiams, Amherst level, I assume that happens fairly often---and i can see the attraction of those schools with a couple thousand intense undergrads as the entire campus versus some big research university with five to ten times as many students.

Probably not as many as you think. Especially against HYPS. I'd think no more than a handful, if money wasn't a factor.

Research opportunities are far better at Princeton than Swarthmore. No knock on Swarthmore as it's a fantastic school, but there's a reason Princeton is Princeton and Swarthmore is not. For anyone wanting the benefits of a school with a strong undergraduate focus but with the stellar research and faculty of a larger university you'd be really silly to turn down Princeton for Swarthmore. For the same reason someone wanting to play higher caliber (recruitment quality) sports in college would be silly to turn down either Penn or Swarthmore for Princeton.

Maybe your kid is the Swattie model and will fit in with Swarthmore perfectly and that calls to him over Princeton, but one does then wonder why he didn't apply ED to start with. Otherwise just be realistic about what Swarthmore can offer that Princeton doesn't. And, of course, let's see if Swarthmore does accept him because if he isn't an African American genius then there's no guarantees. Swarthmore may write him off as a lost cause, someone most likely to be accepted by an Ivy and this reject him to protect their yield.

As a professor, I think that this is a false comparison. Swarthmore is solely focued on undergraduates, whereas at Princeton undergraduates compete with graduate students for faculty time. Also, the culture at Swarthmore is much more academic than Princeton. According to the NSF, a significantly higher percentage of Swarthmore students end up getting PhDs compared to Princeton. (Swarthmore with nearly 23% of alum eventually earning PhDs is #3 according to the NSF; Princeton falls just outside the top 10 at #11 with 14%.) Swarthmore is well known among PhD programs as a top caliber feeder into doctoral programs. Princeton students do well, of course, but with the exception of a few majors (e.g., math) students don't choose Princeton because they're planning on getting PhDs. Students who do plan on competing a doctorate OTOH do choose Swarthmore--or Reed, Carleton. The best SLACs do a superior job of getting their students into doctoral programs.

Meh.

I think there's a lot of self-selection going on here that distorts the picture. Having seen both the top LAC environment and a major Ivy school, the latter had many more research opportunities available, with bigger departments, much bigger libraries, and many more specialist niches available for research. More money for funding, as well. Comparing Princeton and Swarthmore also means comparing the faculty between the two schools and Princeton has many more big names and that means potential opportunities to study with and even research for a big name.

Princeton is not a huge school either. Swarthmore has about 1600 undergrad compared to 5400 at Princeton (and Princeton has a further 3,000 grad students). It may seem much bigger, but it really won't feel like that. I do think Swarthmore is a fabulous school. And no one is hurt going to one over the other. At the same time I'd be careful about so decisively setting my heart on a PhD and researching with professors when you haven't even entered college! And the PhD track is one which many students regret going down. The major advantage of going to a bigger school, besides more resources, is that you have more opportunities in majors, courses, and yes, meeting people. A LAC, due to their small sizes, is just going to be much more limited.

Besides, if this woman's son is the genius she claims he is with likely letters prior to admissions, he will be one of the top of his class at Princeton (or Penn or any other big school) and in front of the queue to study and research with big name Princeton professors, so I would actually argue with much greater resources available to him at a bigger school, he should be looking at Princeton if he wants to make the most of researching as an undergrad with ultimately a PhD in sight.

Having had experiences at both Swarthmore, Chicago, and Princeton, I’d recommend Swarthmore for an unparalleled undergraduate experience and then a research university for graduate school. If you don’t plan on graduate school, I’d say, sure, go to a university. Smaller does not mean fewer opportunities—especially when you’re talking about schools like Swarthmore, Carleton, Williams, etc. On the contrary, smaller translates into greater accessibility to faculty, funds, clubs, etc. You can experience both a college and a university if you start off at a SLAC and then go onto a uni, but if you start off at at uni, you’ll never have the unique experience of a SLAC education.

I started out at a top LAC (AWS) and transferred to an Ivy. I didn't find the LAC environment that special. It was small and somewhat claustrophobic. The social life was dull. The school was excellent and the teachers were excellent, but the resources and opportunities that came with a bigger school really did make a difference even if I do admit that the overall quality of teaching was slightly lesser (say, 95% of the LAC quality). I remember looking at the course catalogue of my new Ivy and being completely blown away by the classes I could take. And I met a lot more interesting people from all over the country and the world. The Ivy students felt more grown up. I've tried to put my finger on it and I think it's the kids embracing a bigger environment that made it seem more grown up, along with kids who came from non-trad backgrounds that offered a different perspective of the real world. By contrast the LAC felt like a continuation of an expensive boarding school. My LAC was, at least at the time, solidly white and upper middle class with a few token minorities. It's probably more diverse now, so maybe things are different.

Many of my Ivy classmates went on to do PhDs at top programs across the country so I don't see anyone hurt in this regards.

Then again, we're talking three decades ago so take my opinion for what you think it's worth.

What school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usual Suspects. Was checking one ivy's insta because my kid is interested in it and it was all athletes (some kid was a hammer thrower), legacies (some girl had a comment on her insta saying the family legacy continues), and URM or programs like Questbridge (posted got a full ride to an ivy peeps). Not fair to ordinary high achieving kids.

get over it

Don't worry we will MAGA. Trump Justice Department. Hang in there. After we go after affirmative action, we will go after colleges for antitrust for fixing their tuition. #newdayinamerica

Be careful what you wish for. When you get rid of affirmative action, Ivy admits will be all Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Our soon to be valedictorian of a top private (and probably on financial aid) did not get into an IVY but multiple 25-50% ranked kids with legacy were accepted. An AA child that currently takes the lowest math level just go into an IVY too. It has been a VERY awkward week in school for a lot of these kids. They see the rich and URM's getting in and the middle and lower income white kids, getting deferred or rejected.

That doesn't mean the valedictorian won't get in RD. The early decision bump goes to the hooked. Everyone knows that.

I am the PP. Some of the rich have legacy, some don’t have any hooks. The URM aren’t hooked with anything but their skin color. We are talking about nice kids but not the top of the class by any means. In a school that talks about treating everyone equally, it is quite apparent college’s do not. Money or minority is what gets you in these days.

Why do you assume the URM aren't hooked except for skin color? My kids are black and their dad went to an ivy. They don't generally mention where their dad went to school to their peers because they don't view it as relevant to their friendships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our suburban public school three years in a row

At most 1% of kids get into a top private. Here are some stats

Rank #3 - White female. Deferred from Stanford. Got into Brown and Duke. Went to state flagship

Rank #2 - Asian female, Applied ED to Penn, went to Penn

Rank #1 - Asian Male. Only got into Cornell and Dartmouth. Went to Dartmouth

Anecdotally, only URM's or diversity cases in our school make it to HYPSM


End of Story.

I guess you can keep hating on minorities, but the reality is that these schools are still majority white, with a national demographic that is now nearly not for that cohort. I have no idea what's going on with your school, but it's not the case that white kids are locked out. Not remotely true.

Incorrect. Whites comprise less than 50% of the student body at most of the ivies. White students are down to 36% of undergrads at Stanford.

URMs are less than 25% of the Stanford class according to the latest common data set.

PP doesn't realize that what she's really complaining about is that her kid is being overshadowed by the significant increase in more qualified Asian applicants/admits, and that is where the significant changes are coming from. Not an uptick in the number of URMs being admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Our soon to be valedictorian of a top private (and probably on financial aid) did not get into an IVY but multiple 25-50% ranked kids with legacy were accepted. An AA child that currently takes the lowest math level just go into an IVY too. It has been a VERY awkward week in school for a lot of these kids. They see the rich and URM's getting in and the middle and lower income white kids, getting deferred or rejected.

That doesn't mean the valedictorian won't get in RD. The early decision bump goes to the hooked. Everyone knows that.

I am the PP. Some of the rich have legacy, some don’t have any hooks. The URM aren’t hooked with anything but their skin color. We are talking about nice kids but not the top of the class by any means. In a school that talks about treating everyone equally, it is quite apparent college’s do not. Money or minority is what gets you in these days.

Why do you assume the URM aren't hooked except for skin color? My kids are black and their dad went to an ivy. They don't generally mention where their dad went to school to their peers because they don't view it as relevant to their friendships.

Don’t bother engaging. The story is probably not true and just another made up so the OP can push some white grievance agenda. People like the OP make up these stories to excuse the failures of their children and themselves. If we switched to a pure merit system, they’d complain that Asians were gaming the system by working too hard. They will only be satisfied if their less qualified white children comprise the vast majority of slots at elite colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These schools are always several steps ahead, just when you think you figured out their formula, they flip the script. They are looking for genuine intellectual ability, rare talent and kids who are not "created" by parents and college consultants. They have their ways of figuring this out. It's less about the schools they come from, once you pass the academic bar, the rest weighs a lot more.

HYP grad here. The top schools stay a few steps ahead but you’d be surprised at how many kids without ultra-rare talents figure out the formula and make it in.

Hence the influx of recent Water Polo "enthusiasts".

I live in California and water polo is like religion out here. Trust me, there is no shortage of great players. East coast poseurs will not fool anyone.

OK, now we know what you were talking about!

[Anonymous]

All of you complaining about affirmative action clearly fail to understand that white women/girls benefit from it the MOST, not little black and brown kids. Maybe your kids aren't as "special" as you think they are.

[Anonymous]

It looks like cheaters are making it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's one example of a kid who got into Harvard - which I think is awesome and well deserved.

https://twitter.com/JaclynCorin/status/1073374537004273667

Exactly why I have lost all respect for Harvard's admission process. Besides being race baiters they are also blatant viewpoint discriminators

View point discriminators? Mediocrity has always seeked to justify their dumbness. The only viewpoint discriminator here is you, that cannot see beyond your corseted ideas. Despite the noble cause she is defending, she has moved millions of people around the world. She has started a worldwide movement. So yes, she is one of a kind. Despite if you agree or not with her (talking about viewpoint discriminators...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale EA. Top of class at Montgomery County public school (not a W), top test scores, outstanding extracurriculars including fluent Mandarin and Spanish, published political papers, varsity sports letter, several jazz bands, NASA internship etc.

Adding--totally unaffiliated with Yale. No legacy ties or relations and no minority status.

Stop trying to draw attention to your cute little story. No one has commented on it because no one believes it.

???? Why are you so mean? Go to therapy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our suburban public school three years in a row

At most 1% of kids get into a top private. Here are some stats

Rank #3 - White female. Deferred from Stanford. Got into Brown and Duke. Went to state flagship

Rank #2 - Asian female, Applied ED to Penn, went to Penn

Rank #1 - Asian Male. Only got into Cornell and Dartmouth. Went to Dartmouth

Anecdotally, only URM's or diversity cases in our school make it to HYPSM


End of Story.

I guess you can keep hating on minorities, but the reality is that these schools are still majority white, with a national demographic that is now nearly not for that cohort. I have no idea what's going on with your school, but it's not the case that white kids are locked out. Not remotely true.

Incorrect. Whites comprise less than 50% of the student body at most of the ivies. White students are down to 36% of undergrads at Stanford.

Here are facts:

The number of today's 17 and 18 year olds who are white is barely over 50%. Hard to claim that there is any big disadvantage to being white.

Schools play with how they count ethnicity, including whether international students are in or out and percentages of admits versus students matriculating. But most top schools are still majority white among US students, and once you get out of schools that are at the very top and/or in more urban areas, the percentage of white students soars (here's looking at you, Dartmouth, with 65% white).

There is no top ranked school that has a percentage of African Americans or Latinos (or Native Americans or Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, for that matter) among their student body that exceeds the percentage in the population generally. For URMs, every top school is LESS diverse than the national population of college-age people.

So, you can keep blaming minority students when your kid doesn't get in to a school, but that's just scapegoating.

What is the distribution of races amongst college applicants?

Whites and Asians make up a huge proportion of those who are "college ready" based on test scores, so comparing their proportion to the general public is irrelevant.