How did your super high stats kid fare (1550 plus and 4.5 plus with max rigor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If folks stuck to the original question this forum could be useful. OP asked how your high stats + high rigor kids fared. It was very useful in correcting the expectations while people were posting where their kids were denied, waitlisted, accepted and admitted. Over analyzing of what AOs may or may look for is useless. Don’t suck up the oxygen and just let people provide their data!

The purpose of this thread is for parents to vent. We all know what matters the most is the high school. The correct expectation should be established based on your own high school data, not on random online posts from random high schools. No one will correct the expectations based on these posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

CMU has a 5-7% acceptance rate, and it's even lower for CS. It's not shocking. 85% of students applying are "qualified" yet only 2-3% get into CS. That means many many highly qualified will get rejected. It's a numbers game.

[Anonymous]

I think the point is that these are not "super high stats"

There is no such thing because the ceiling is so low. Literally almost ten thousand kids exactly like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

There’s a higher EC threshold required for that major.

Your kid should’ve picked applied math or statistics or data science or something. Even undecided is better than CS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

You are assuming weak ECs based on listing a sample. Not putting every little detail about my kid out there.

Every one of these threads on stats degrades to this. High stats bad results must be something wrong. My point is nothing was wrong, there are tons of kids with a strong profile and not enough space for all of of them. I wish more people understood this so I share my kids story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

You are assuming weak ECs based on listing a sample. Not putting every little detail about my kid out there.

Every one of these threads on stats degrades to this. High stats bad results must be something wrong. My point is nothing was wrong, there are tons of kids with a strong profile and not enough space for all of of them. I wish more people understood this so I share my kids story.

100%! Once the kid meet the threshold its random. A small number get lucky, it doesn't mean they were better in any way than the other qualified kids who lost the lottery. Human nature is look for a logical answer, no one wants to believe that their kid's college fate comes down to the roll of the dice so they minutely parse the stats/profiles of the lucky and unlucky hoping for a way to differentiate their kid . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

You are assuming weak ECs based on listing a sample. Not putting every little detail about my kid out there.

Every one of these threads on stats degrades to this. High stats bad results must be something wrong. My point is nothing was wrong, there are tons of kids with a strong profile and not enough space for all of of them. I wish more people understood this so I share my kids story.

I agree w/you.
Its one bored mom trolling and she cuts everyone down like this. She sits and waits for ANYONE to respond. Its why most of us have left this site for other places to discuss college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

You are assuming weak ECs based on listing a sample. Not putting every little detail about my kid out there.

Every one of these threads on stats degrades to this. High stats bad results must be something wrong. My point is nothing was wrong, there are tons of kids with a strong profile and not enough space for all of of them. I wish more people understood this so I share my kids story.

I'm assuming weak ECs based on exactly what YOU said. No one needs every little detail but when you said the kid was a varsity athlete + a part time employee as the only ECs and then you add, "Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else" it is clear the ECs were weak. You can add more...but YOU said there wasn't much time for ECs. So yeah, I didn't assume anything. While sometimes high stats + ECs + excellent apps still doesn't mean hoped-for results. In your kid's case, there was "something wrong" which was that his ECs were a big weak spot of the app (even if the ECs were more than the two you listed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

You are assuming weak ECs based on listing a sample. Not putting every little detail about my kid out there.

Every one of these threads on stats degrades to this. High stats bad results must be something wrong. My point is nothing was wrong, there are tons of kids with a strong profile and not enough space for all of of them. I wish more people understood this so I share my kids story.

I'm assuming weak ECs based on exactly what YOU said. No one needs every little detail but when you said the kid was a varsity athlete + a part time employee as the only ECs and then you add, "Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else" it is clear the ECs were weak. You can add more...but YOU said there wasn't much time for ECs. So yeah, I didn't assume anything. While sometimes high stats + ECs + excellent apps still doesn't mean hoped-for results. In your kid's case, there was "something wrong" which was that his ECs were a big weak spot of the app (even if the ECs were more than the two you listed).

Was being sarcastic. There was leadership and school recognition in the 2 clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

You are assuming weak ECs based on listing a sample. Not putting every little detail about my kid out there.

Every one of these threads on stats degrades to this. High stats bad results must be something wrong. My point is nothing was wrong, there are tons of kids with a strong profile and not enough space for all of of them. I wish more people understood this so I share my kids story.

I'm assuming weak ECs based on exactly what YOU said. No one needs every little detail but when you said the kid was a varsity athlete + a part time employee as the only ECs and then you add, "Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else" it is clear the ECs were weak. You can add more...but YOU said there wasn't much time for ECs. So yeah, I didn't assume anything. While sometimes high stats + ECs + excellent apps still doesn't mean hoped-for results. In your kid's case, there was "something wrong" which was that his ECs were a big weak spot of the app (even if the ECs were more than the two you listed).

Was being sarcastic. There was leadership and school recognition in the 2 clubs.

I am not sure why I'm bothering but leadership and school recognition in 2 clubs is still very little EC-wise. You don't seem to want to hear this and don't like the kid getting "blame" but it is true. And I'm not blaming your kid...but a fair assessment of how you've presented this kid indicates this applicant would not be strong for highly competitive schools/programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kid had 1580 SAT/36 ACT.
Salutatorian. Private HS in Texas. Basically maxed out GPA with 10 APs at 5.

Great ECs.

Denied at H,P,S
Accepted Vandy, Duke and Oxford.

This is crazy. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford is such a crap shoot even with these stats….so frustrating.
Where is you kid going between Vandy, Duke and Oxford?

None of this is crazy. This person could’ve gotten rejected more than a decade ago. Just having a good score isn’t unique- a lot of people have good scores with course rigor.

+1 Parents don't grasp this until their kid experiences it themselves. These schools are rejecting 95 out of every 100 applicants (it is actually probably more like rejecting 97/98 out 100 if you take out the spots that are essentially reserved for athletes, kids of donors/legacy and questbridge). Your outstanding kid is competing with literally thousands of other equally qualified students for a couple of spots.

Im the parent of the kid denied at H,P and S and accepted to Vandy, Duke and Oxford.
The frustrating part for him is that little sister just got in Stanford, same major, worst stats. 1550/35 top 3% but not salutatorian and quite frankly, worse ECs than her brother.

DS was rejected from all of the Ivy plus schools and ended up at Georgetown. His younger sister had a worse GPA and SAT score but got into Princeton. That's why this admissions game is a crapshoot at the very elite schools. Your DS had some great choices - which one did he pick of the three?