Got a Smart Kid Applying for College Anytime Soon? Read this NYT Article (if you haven't yet)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't anything new here except more applications, lower admit rates, more schools in the single digit zone. Not a great article. No analysis of legacy trends or foreign student applications and admits.

It's news to plenty of people. For example, someone in their 40s might have read that Yale has a 6% acceptance rate but not have realized that the rate was 20%+ when they applied in the 1980s. The historical overview, even in summary fashion, is helpful to put this issue in perspective.

Right. There are plenty of Ivy grads who might not make the cut today, but are wholly unaware of how the odds have changed over a generation.

But that really doesnt matter because legacy admission means their offsprings can still get in relatively easy.

The odds are better for the general pool (25%-30%) vs. 5%-8%. Legacy admits may have other hooks as well, That said, i wouldn't call those odds "relatively easy," as it means that for every such admission offer, more than two presumably pretty well prepared and accomplished students are denied admission.

[Anonymous]

Mean to say that the odds for legacy admits are better than for the general pool -- but certainly not relatively easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both my husband and I are very successful (Ivy degrees, etc.). He made partner in Big Law. Our kids are confident and gifted. They are not afraid of competition and they will be winners.

With an attitude like that I feel sorry for your kids. "Winners"? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both my husband and I are very successful (Ivy degrees, etc.). He made partner in Big Law. Our kids are confident and gifted. They are not afraid of competition and they will be winners.

Do you realize how many confident, gifted kids are applying to these schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my husband and I are very successful (Ivy degrees, etc.). He made partner in Big Law. Our kids are confident and gifted. They are not afraid of competition and they will be winners.

With an attitude like that I feel sorry for your kids. "Winners"? Really?

1st pp is a troll, from a non-English speaking country. 2nd pp is just gullible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my husband and I are very successful (Ivy degrees, etc.). He made partner in Big Law. Our kids are confident and gifted. They are not afraid of competition and they will be winners.

With an attitude like that I feel sorry for your kids. "Winners"? Really?

1st pp is a troll, from a non-English speaking country. 2nd pp is just gullible

How do you know they come from a non-English speaking country?

[Anonymous]

I definitely think competition is more fierce than it was 20 years ago (when I graduated from college). Applicants with perfect test scores, 4+ gpa, community service, music background, etc... is not as rare these days. In the article (or maybe I read it in a different article), I think the Admissions person said something like some of those that didn't make it are somewhat indistinguishable to those that did. I don't know if getting in is a crap shoot. But I do think that something about that person needs to stand out from the other high achievers. I would think that an applicant with all of these qualifications but and had to overcome adversity of some kind would stand out. I don't know really know how else an applicant from a middle-high income family can stand out these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure if I am articulating my question clearly, so please humor me, but if you account for all of the extra "randomly fired off" applications that do not fall within the Ivy's selection profile, then is the selectivity still dramatically different than it was 20 years ago? In the 80's was the applicant pool largely comprised of qualified students? I guess that I am curious about the acceptance rate for applicants that mirror the profile of the current freshman class.

I think I understand. You're asking whether the accepted student profile has gotten measurably stronger, I think. In other words, would a student admitted in the 1980s (30-35 years ago!) still be admitted today? It's a hard question, but I think the best way to answer might be to look at the average SAT scores for admitted students. Have they changed significantly. or are they still roughly the same? That's not a perfect answer, but it might give a good estimate.

25th percentile of 2013 incoming class (verbal/math) = 710/710
25th percentile of 1985 incoming class = 620/640

75th percentile of 2013 incoming class = 800/790
75th percentile of 1985 incoming class = 720/730

Definitely a significant increase in SAT scores of attending students. Some of that might be attributable to the SAT "recentering" that occurred in the mid-1990s, but surely not all of it.

FWIW, of 1359 matriculating students ...
55% of matriculants came from public high schools.
45% of matriculants came from independent, parochial, and other schools.
14% of matriculants were children of Yale alumni.

Total University Enrollments* (non-International):
Black or African American: 8%
American Indian/Alaska Native: 2%
Asian: 17%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: <1%
Hispanic of any race: 8%
White: 62%
Race/ethnicity unknown: 3%

I think a good portion of that is the re-centering, but I agree it probably doesn't account for all of it. A 730 verbal is equivalent to an 800 now, and the 730 math is the same.

That's from the re-centering tables, but average scores jumped about 100 points so I'm skeptical that the math is really the same.

I also think the increase of prepping has driven scores higher for similarly capable students. I.e. a student that got a1400 in the mid-80's with no studying would probably get into the 1500's today with the typical prep regime expected of high performers now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... I would think that an applicant with all of these qualifications but and had to overcome adversity of some kind would stand out. I don't know really know how else an applicant from a middle-high income family can stand out these days.

Yes, if you're deciding between two applicants with essentially interchangeable stats (GPA, SAT, APs, etc), wouldn't you want to pick the one who accomplished those things despite a more difficult path?

It's sort of like picking Ginger Rogers over Fred Astaire, because she did everything he did ... but backwards and in heels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... I would think that an applicant with all of these qualifications but and had to overcome adversity of some kind would stand out. I don't know really know how else an applicant from a middle-high income family can stand out these days.

Yes, if you're deciding between two applicants with essentially interchangeable stats (GPA, SAT, APs, etc), wouldn't you want to pick the one who accomplished those things despite a more difficult path?

It's sort of like picking Ginger Rogers over Fred Astaire, because she did everything he did ... but backwards and in heels.

Hey, I like that analogy. Works for just about everything women do compared to men

[Anonymous]

There's also a Central Casting component, finding interesting students from across the country and now world with compelling life stories.

[Anonymous]

Great article. I wonder how much good we have done ourselves by opening our universities to the world. So much more competition. But if DH and I applied to our Ivies for next year -- we would still both get in based on the criteria.

[Anonymous]

^^ 80s graduates. It was HARD to get in. Needed national stats in several areas to qualify.

[Anonymous]

Yes, you would both get in because you are alumni and you have mastered the science of time travel.

[Anonymous]

If student makes 10 applications, that means there are 9 colleges that he/she did not attend. Why not apply to 10 colleges if all you do is click?