Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Northwestern, other Ivies What Does It Take ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Stanford has the most successful athletic department in the country (#1 in all-time NCAA titles and they've won at least 1 team title every year in recent memory). Essentially all of their athletes are top 1% or better. They pump out olympians and professional athletes in Palo Alto!

Not in the revenue sports. Water polo, synvchronized swimming, men's volleyball, women's rowing, then yes.

There are 29 former Stanford players currently on NFL rosters.
https://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/active-nfl-players-by-college/stanford/91901

When was their last national championship in college football?

Stanford has been to 9 bowl games since 2010 including 3 Rose Bowls, a Fiesta Bowl, and an Orange Bowl. They are down this year but have certainly competed on the national level since the 2000s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

I would say no. The acceptance margin for scea isn't that much greater than rd, especially if you remove the recruits, legacies etc. They are likely looking for the pointy kids who have something they want in the early round. Unhooked admission would be really slim, maybe even worse than rd because the early deadline leaves less time to accrue awards. But if the kid doesn't love an ED, you don't want the possibility that they end up committed somewhere they aren't thrilled about. Even if it is a top school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2017, Stanford's best recent football recruiting year, they had 2 of the top 10 and 3 of the top 15 football recruits in the country. They have multiple 4*+ recruits every year.
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool/

They also had the #6 men's basketball player in 2020 and #19 (and #70) in 2021.
https://247sports.com/Season/2021-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool

Stanford's women's basketball is also a revenue sport with numerous top 25 recruits and a recent national title.

Cherry picking two years in the two major recruiting sports doesn’t help your argument.

[Anonymous]

Recruited athletes considerably inflate Williams and Amherst's ED rate. Pomona has a much smaller percent of varsity athletes overall- 20% vs almost 40% at those two- and also pairs with Pitzer (where lower stats athletes are told to apply); because of that, their ED rate of under 15% is consistently under most Ivies/universities offering ED.

Putting it in mathematical form:

Pomona gets around 60 ED recruited athletes each year. Williams about 170. Remove them from the ED pool, and you get non-athlete acceptance rates of:

68/545 at Williams: 12.4%
145/1546 at Pomona: 9.3%

Which is much closer than the actual acceptance rates- 33% vs 12%- would make you think. And also much closer to the ED/EA acceptance rates at Ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In the world of kids I know, the ones who were admitted to H/Y/P were true superstars. Not just perfect gpa, perfect sat and the most rigorous classes (and when I say most rigorous, I really mean it - not just thru MV but also took all of the english and social studies APs, took multiple hard science APs, and finished world language AP junior year). But also excelled in other things - music, science competitions, quizbowl or debate. These were the 2-3 kids in a class of 500 who you “knew” would one day go to H/Y/P. There are of course other students every year who get into Penn,Columbia, Dartmouth - these kids are also terrific students but don’t have that “extra” and so there are a lot more of them so it actually seems less predictable to me why Lola got into Penn and Larla
did not.

Respectfully, I think this post is just flat wrong. The poster can't predict who gets admitted to HYP or Penn, Columbia, and Dartmouth. Those "other things" listed hardly do anything to separate applicants at that elite level. You wouldn't "know" those kids would one day go to HYP even if they were legacies who grew up wearing HYP gear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Stanford has the most successful athletic department in the country (#1 in all-time NCAA titles and they've won at least 1 team title every year in recent memory). Essentially all of their athletes are top 1% or better. They pump out olympians and professional athletes in Palo Alto!

Not in the revenue sports. Water polo, synvchronized swimming, men's volleyball, women's rowing, then yes.

There are 29 former Stanford players currently on NFL rosters.
https://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/active-nfl-players-by-college/stanford/91901

When was their last national championship in college football?

Stanford has been to 9 bowl games since 2010 including 3 Rose Bowls, a Fiesta Bowl, and an Orange Bowl. They are down this year but have certainly competed on the national level since the 2000s.

That's nice. The answer is 1940.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2017, Stanford's best recent football recruiting year, they had 2 of the top 10 and 3 of the top 15 football recruits in the country. They have multiple 4*+ recruits every year.
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool/

They also had the #6 men's basketball player in 2020 and #19 (and #70) in 2021.
https://247sports.com/Season/2021-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool

Stanford's women's basketball is also a revenue sport with numerous top 25 recruits and a recent national title.

Cherry picking two years in the two major recruiting sports doesn’t help your argument.

Stanford's fall sport national rankings from last week:
1 Men's water polo
1 Women's golf
2 Men's golf
2 Men's cross country
5 Men's soccer
8 Women's volleyball
12 Women's soccer

[Anonymous]

FWIW, even in a down year Stanford leads that school in South Bend by 2 in the 4th quarter (American football).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Stanford has the most successful athletic department in the country (#1 in all-time NCAA titles and they've won at least 1 team title every year in recent memory). Essentially all of their athletes are top 1% or better. They pump out olympians and professional athletes in Palo Alto!

Not in the revenue sports. Water polo, synvchronized swimming, men's volleyball, women's rowing, then yes.

There are 29 former Stanford players currently on NFL rosters.
https://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/active-nfl-players-by-college/stanford/91901

When was their last national championship in college football?

Stanford has been to 9 bowl games since 2010 including 3 Rose Bowls, a Fiesta Bowl, and an Orange Bowl. They are down this year but have certainly competed on the national level since the 2000s.

That's nice. The answer is 1940.

National titles are far from the only measure of football success. Your question wasn't a good one to get at what you were trying to imply (a lack of football success), so I provided some compelling data to help you see how objectively successful the program has been

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In the world of kids I know, the ones who were admitted to H/Y/P were true superstars. Not just perfect gpa, perfect sat and the most rigorous classes (and when I say most rigorous, I really mean it - not just thru MV but also took all of the english and social studies APs, took multiple hard science APs, and finished world language AP junior year). But also excelled in other things - music, science competitions, quizbowl or debate. These were the 2-3 kids in a class of 500 who you “knew” would one day go to H/Y/P. There are of course other students every year who get into Penn,Columbia, Dartmouth - these kids are also terrific students but don’t have that “extra” and so there are a lot more of them so it actually seems less predictable to me why Lola got into Penn and Larla
did not.

Respectfully, I think this post is just flat wrong. The poster can't predict who gets admitted to HYP or Penn, Columbia, and Dartmouth. Those "other things" listed hardly do anything to separate applicants at that elite level. You wouldn't "know" those kids would one day go to HYP even if they were legacies who grew up wearing HYP gear.

I don't think the posters is talking about legacies wearing gear. That kid that is a natural born scholar and is so academically gifted. Not the ones that wear gear and talk about the ivy league. The ones that talk about physics, never and end up at MIT or something because it's the obvious place for them.

[Anonymous]

Never talk about college* and end up at MIT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

I was thinking of Stanford when I made that comment.

How many Olympic athletes do they have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

I was thinking of Stanford when I made that comment.

How many Olympic athletes do they have?

^ spoiler: a bunch
“Stanford sent 57 former, current or affiliated athletes to Tokyo to compete on the world stage at the 2020 Olympic Games. Between the Opening Ceremony on July 23 and the Closing Ceremony on Aug. 8, Stanford captured 26 medals — more than any university in the country and just one shy of the school-record 27 earned by Cardinal athletes at the 2016 Rio Games.”

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/09/15/dynamic-dozen-the-stanford-student-athletes-who-took-on-tokyo/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

My kid was admitted to Harvard RD. She did not want to ED anywhere and would have been satisfied with any of the schools on her well-balanced list which included ASU w/ Barrett Honors College as her likely. It’s a matter of fit. Did not apply to Princeton as she did not like the sound of the eating clubs. Was rejected from Stanford REA. She applied there REA as they do not defer most applicants like Harvard and other schools do. She took the L and moved on. Harvard was her first choice all along — just never thought she’d get in. Was admitted to U-M EA and a few others as well, but she just did not have a favorite school that offered ED.