Stats for Carnegie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

[Anonymous]

DD was admitted RD, 1560 SAT (first try fall junior year), 4.8 weighted GPA (MCPS), decent ECs including varsity sport, STEM major but not CS. Ultimately declined to attend a T10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following - DD is interested in Economics and Statistics

My guy is starting his second year there in econ and he loves it. That said, they really do believe it's "in the work" and he says there is a fair amount of stress. In terms of admissions, he had been urged by his HS to apply to some Ivies and Chicago, so you have a sense of where he might theoretically have been, but he did not get into any of them. That said, CMU econ is not the impossible-to-get-into program that CS is.

One more thing - the campus is very diverse, and by diverse, I mean it runs from east Asian, to south Asian, and back, with some white along the way. My guy hits two or three of those metrics and is fine with that, but some of the middle-class white families I grew up with decades ago would have found CMU's culture to be a bridge too far, back then.

First paragraph right-on, bolded utterly useless and unnecessary.

My white DD just came back from a summer program at CMU and she loved how international it was. She said everyone seemed fluent in another language and all the local restaurants were ethnic-oriented. It’s probably not a raucous party scene like you would find at a big state school, but she liked it there.

Was this the CS summer program? My DS (rising 11th grade) applied to the AI program, but was rejected. He might reapply next summer? What were her stats if yiu don’t mind sharing?

[Anonymous]

CMU has a very high bar for girls from TJ.

[Anonymous]

Small private Florida like 50 kids in the whole school.

Engineering

Excellent stats in terms of grades and test scores., no volunteering really, part-time job.

Yep she's going to be a freshman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

First of all, I am not the poster who said CMU doesn't take academically stronger girls. Second, my daughter is the not the only one who got rejected. There were several other boys & girls with excellent academic & extra-curriculars rejected by CMU. Those who got in DO NOT exhibit anything better by any measure. Do you even have a kid at TJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CMU has a very high bar for girls from TJ.

If you had a kid at TJ that graduated in 2022, you should be knowing there were several kids (boys & girls) meeting "high" standards in academic and extra-curriculars were rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

Yes, seriously. I don't even know how to interpret someone not getting into a school other than "the committee found their application less strong than those of the kids they admitted." At selective schools, even a very strong applicant can be less strong than many other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

First of all, I am not the poster who said CMU doesn't take academically stronger girls. Second, my daughter is the not the only one who got rejected. There were several other boys & girls with excellent academic & extra-curriculars rejected by CMU. Those who got in DO NOT exhibit anything better by any measure. Do you even have a kid at TJ?

Why are you refusing to accept the easily verifiable fact that many, many kids with excellent academic & extra-curricular records get rejected from CMU? It is hard to believe that anyone could go through the college admissions process and not know that selective schools reject numerous strong applicants for every one they accept. They have to, there are only so many spots.

Those kids who got in exhibited that they were better than the kids who didn't get in by the only measure that matters - the admissions committee thought they were better. As you cannot have seen the applications of the kids who got in, you should be embarrassed to argue that the kids who got in were inferior to the ones who didn't. Yeah, you're mad that your daughter got denied, but other kids were better than her, get over it already.