What differentiates those non-prodigies who make it to HYPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do think that it is down to luck for the non-prodigies. HYPS receives thousands of applications from non-prodigious kids with amazing grades, scores and great ECs. Who gets in from this pool is kind of arbitrary.

I was a Harvard undergrad and a Penn grad student who had to work a lot with undergrads ( was a TA). What I observed was that the top 15% or so at Harvard was markedly stronger because it consisted of the really extraordinary students and prodigies who tend to flock to Harvard to a much greater degree than Penn. Such students also existed at Penn but at much smaller numbers. However once you got past the very top I didn't notice any significant difference between the middle 50% of the student body at Harvard compared to the middle 50% at Penn.

Of course the interesting question here is whether the top 15% in college were the kids that looked like prodigies at the applicant stage. I was certainly in the former category and probably not in the latter (at least based on the indicators DCUM focuses on — standardized test scores and national/international competitions).

in my experience the kind of kid who was a math olympiad champion ended up effortlessly in the top 10% or so of the class at Harvard. It was quite frustrating to watch the prodigies just glide through, barely breaking a sweat lol.

I was an unhooked student at one of these schools and ended up in the middle of my class. Maybe high-middle of the class. Not brilliant, but I turned in everything on time, did all the homework, studied hard for finals when it mattered.

My sibling, on the other hand, was a prodigy. Not just top 15 percent at H like the PP but probably top few students at H. Probably the top student in a very competitive major. Ended up at the best grad program in that field for a PhD. Could eventually (realistically) win a Nobel.

We went to a public school (and not one that's recognizable at all) outside of a major city. While my application was more solid all around, my sibling's showed a huge amount of initiative in a specific academic area in trying to get beyond what our school offered--applying to special summer camps that offered scholarships, taking classes at a nearby college (even though it wasn't a major university), entering competitions/internships that were free despite not having high-profile sponsors and beating out kids who did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwestern isn't an Ivy-equivalent. Carry on

Neither is Duke.

Eh can you really say that Duke and NU are not comparable to Brown or Cornell or even Dartmouth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard/Stanford or bust. the rest are for dumb losers...

Jokes Aside, As a parent who will most probably have to pay full price for a kid to attend a private school, my spouse and I have decided not to give money to schools that are rated poorly for "fostering diversity of viewpoints" and "valuing freedom of speech". We have been following how the elite schools handle these issues based on the controversies on campus and have pretty much eliminated HYPS from the mix of schools that our child will apply to. There are too many good schools in the mix to let our money go to administrations that have policies that we seriously disagree with.

Harvard's administration seems to be specially egregious in this respect.

I think Yale is the most egregious of the HYPS schools in that respect. Harvard is a bit better, and Princeton and Stanford are quite better. The ivies you wanna avoid are Yale, Brown and Columbia. The rest of the ivies and elites, while also predominantly liberal, are not as militant.

[Anonymous]

I have a feeling that Yale, Brown and Columbia avoided you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do think that it is down to luck for the non-prodigies. HYPS receives thousands of applications from non-prodigious kids with amazing grades, scores and great ECs. Who gets in from this pool is kind of arbitrary.

I was a Harvard undergrad and a Penn grad student who had to work a lot with undergrads ( was a TA). What I observed was that the top 15% or so at Harvard was markedly stronger because it consisted of the really extraordinary students and prodigies who tend to flock to Harvard to a much greater degree than Penn. Such students also existed at Penn but at much smaller numbers. However once you got past the very top I didn't notice any significant difference between the middle 50% of the student body at Harvard compared to the middle 50% at Penn.

Of course the interesting question here is whether the top 15% in college were the kids that looked like prodigies at the applicant stage. I was certainly in the former category and probably not in the latter (at least based on the indicators DCUM focuses on — standardized test scores and national/international competitions).

in my experience the kind of kid who was a math olympiad champion ended up effortlessly in the top 10% or so of the class at Harvard. It was quite frustrating to watch the prodigies just glide through, barely breaking a sweat lol.

This actually does not speak well for the University that it fails to challenge their most brilliant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard/Stanford or bust. the rest are for dumb losers...

Jokes Aside, As a parent who will most probably have to pay full price for a kid to attend a private school, my spouse and I have decided not to give money to schools that are rated poorly for "fostering diversity of viewpoints" and "valuing freedom of speech". We have been following how the elite schools handle these issues based on the controversies on campus and have pretty much eliminated HYPS from the mix of schools that our child will apply to. There are too many good schools in the mix to let our money go to administrations that have policies that we seriously disagree with.

Harvard's administration seems to be specially egregious in this respect.

Dear Parent,

We regret losing the opportunity to add your child to the ranks of the 37,000 applicants we rejected this year and will attempt to solider on somehow, though our institution's future viability has been thrown into serious doubt by your disagreement with our practices.

Sincerely,
Harvard's egregious administration

P.S. I have pretty much eliminated supermodels from the mix of women I will date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do think that it is down to luck for the non-prodigies. HYPS receives thousands of applications from non-prodigious kids with amazing grades, scores and great ECs. Who gets in from this pool is kind of arbitrary.

I was a Harvard undergrad and a Penn grad student who had to work a lot with undergrads ( was a TA). What I observed was that the top 15% or so at Harvard was markedly stronger because it consisted of the really extraordinary students and prodigies who tend to flock to Harvard to a much greater degree than Penn. Such students also existed at Penn but at much smaller numbers. However once you got past the very top I didn't notice any significant difference between the middle 50% of the student body at Harvard compared to the middle 50% at Penn.

Of course the interesting question here is whether the top 15% in college were the kids that looked like prodigies at the applicant stage. I was certainly in the former category and probably not in the latter (at least based on the indicators DCUM focuses on — standardized test scores and national/international competitions).

in my experience the kind of kid who was a math olympiad champion ended up effortlessly in the top 10% or so of the class at Harvard. It was quite frustrating to watch the prodigies just glide through, barely breaking a sweat lol.

This actually does not speak well for the University that it fails to challenge their most brilliant.

I'm the one with the prodigy sibling (legit prodigy). My sibling was in the top of class but definitely was challenged at Harvard because of the research opportunities under the best professors and getting pushed by extremely brilliant professors on the thesis, summer research work, and small courses. My sibling's thesis adviser had standards on the thesis that were probably higher than standards for dissertations at most universities.

I know people say otherwise, but my sibling had a lot of one-on-one opportunities with top professors at Harvard. Almost all the instruction was from those professors, not TAs or grad students, like some would have you believe. I have no idea if that's unique to the top students at H, or everyone though (I did not go there. I went to another HYPS).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwestern isn't an Ivy-equivalent. Carry on

Neither is Duke.

Eh can you really say that Duke and NU are not comparable to Brown or Cornell or even Dartmouth?

Of course they are. Sillies.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like two different experiences by the posters. On another note, IMO contests like the Olympiads don't necessarily id the prodigies. No question that one has to train hard for them but kids with a deep interest in a subject sometimes dimly view contests. They're really more about learning a lot of shortcuts and tricks. Unfortunately those kids probably have a harder time proving their talent in the admissions game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do think that it is down to luck for the non-prodigies. HYPS receives thousands of applications from non-prodigious kids with amazing grades, scores and great ECs. Who gets in from this pool is kind of arbitrary.

I was a Harvard undergrad and a Penn grad student who had to work a lot with undergrads ( was a TA). What I observed was that the top 15% or so at Harvard was markedly stronger because it consisted of the really extraordinary students and prodigies who tend to flock to Harvard to a much greater degree than Penn. Such students also existed at Penn but at much smaller numbers. However once you got past the very top I didn't notice any significant difference between the middle 50% of the student body at Harvard compared to the middle 50% at Penn.

Of course the interesting question here is whether the top 15% in college were the kids that looked like prodigies at the applicant stage. I was certainly in the former category and probably not in the latter (at least based on the indicators DCUM focuses on — standardized test scores and national/international competitions).

in my experience the kind of kid who was a math olympiad champion ended up effortlessly in the top 10% or so of the class at Harvard. It was quite frustrating to watch the prodigies just glide through, barely breaking a sweat lol.

This actually does not speak well for the University that it fails to challenge their most brilliant.

That PP doesn’t know WTF s/he is talking about. Sky’s the limit at Harvard, if you have the ability and the drive. Not saying that’s unique to Harvard, but, seriously, if you aren’t challenged there (and challenge is what you’re looking for), you’re doing it wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do think that it is down to luck for the non-prodigies. HYPS receives thousands of applications from non-prodigious kids with amazing grades, scores and great ECs. Who gets in from this pool is kind of arbitrary.

I was a Harvard undergrad and a Penn grad student who had to work a lot with undergrads ( was a TA). What I observed was that the top 15% or so at Harvard was markedly stronger because it consisted of the really extraordinary students and prodigies who tend to flock to Harvard to a much greater degree than Penn. Such students also existed at Penn but at much smaller numbers. However once you got past the very top I didn't notice any significant difference between the middle 50% of the student body at Harvard compared to the middle 50% at Penn.

Of course the interesting question here is whether the top 15% in college were the kids that looked like prodigies at the applicant stage. I was certainly in the former category and probably not in the latter (at least based on the indicators DCUM focuses on — standardized test scores and national/international competitions).

in my experience the kind of kid who was a math olympiad champion ended up effortlessly in the top 10% or so of the class at Harvard. It was quite frustrating to watch the prodigies just glide through, barely breaking a sweat lol.

This actually does not speak well for the University that it fails to challenge their most brilliant.

I'm the one with the prodigy sibling (legit prodigy). My sibling was in the top of class but definitely was challenged at Harvard because of the research opportunities under the best professors and getting pushed by extremely brilliant professors on the thesis, summer research work, and small courses. My sibling's thesis adviser had standards on the thesis that were probably higher than standards for dissertations at most universities.

I know people say otherwise, but my sibling had a lot of one-on-one opportunities with top professors at Harvard. Almost all the instruction was from those professors, not TAs or grad students, like some would have you believe. I have no idea if that's unique to the top students at H, or everyone though (I did not go there. I went to another HYPS).

DH and I both had similar experiences to your sib’s as Harvard undergrads (in non-STEM fields).

[Anonymous]

I've been a Harvard interviewer for 20 years. Prodigiousness is important, but motivated self starter is more important.

Also, a few non academic things will keep you out: PITA parents, arrogance, and an inability to get along with people.

[Anonymous]

I went to a HYPS. I was an unhooked white female from NYC. 2400 SATs and in the top 1/3rd of my class (but not higher) at a public magnet. Did not try hard at all and constantly got marked down for late/I don’t homework. Two extracurriculars with national recognition, but not like in a prodigy sort of way. Intended to major in math and philosophy, which probably helped; but ended up as an EP&E major.

Actually found my school very easy; much easier than HS since I could avoid hard subjects that I wasn’t interested in and there was no busy work. Summa without much effort and gone most weekends for an EC. I got a lot out of the school, but didn’t find the academics particularly challenging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been a Harvard interviewer for 20 years. Prodigiousness is important, but motivated self starter is more important.

Also, a few non academic things will keep you out: PITA parents, arrogance, and an inability to get along with people.

How do you find out whether parents are PITA? (short of showing up to the interview with their kid)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a HYPS. I was an unhooked white female from NYC. 2400 SATs and in the top 1/3rd of my class (but not higher) at a public magnet. Did not try hard at all and constantly got marked down for late/I don’t homework. Two extracurriculars with national recognition, but not like in a prodigy sort of way. Intended to major in math and philosophy, which probably helped; but ended up as an EP&E major.

Actually found my school very easy; much easier than HS since I could avoid hard subjects that I wasn’t interested in and there was no busy work. Summa without much effort and gone most weekends for an EC. I got a lot out of the school, but didn’t find the academics particularly challenging.

EP&E? Did you go to Stuyvesant or Hunter?