Why are WASP so elite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

It truly depends on the school.

Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Middlebury and Tufts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

As the parent of a D1 recruit and a NESCAC recruit I can tell you that you are incorrect. Believe what you want but the standards are written, audited, and required. You should actually try a bit of research because there is plenty of materKal out there describing the process and standards.

My NESCAC athlete had a much higher academic bar than my Ivy athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

As the parent of a D1 recruit and a NESCAC recruit I can tell you that you are incorrect. Believe what you want but the standards are written, audited, and required. You should actually try a bit of research because there is plenty of materKal out there describing the process and standards.

My NESCAC athlete had a much higher academic bar than my Ivy athlete.

The bar was based on ability and need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People (general public and academics) consider these four the LAC equivalents of Ivy-tier signaling.
The next tier of schools Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, substantively have no difference.
Why do they give less Ivy-tier signaling power?

The SLACs have very little signalling power. They are very good undergrads but you really need a graduate degree after going to one of these schools and these schools train you well for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people think schools that can hardly attract more than 15,000 apps are elite now?

A school with a class of 500 students? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People (general public and academics) consider these four the LAC equivalents of Ivy-tier signaling.
The next tier of schools Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, substantively have no difference.
Why do they give less Ivy-tier signaling power?

The SLACs have very little signalling power. They are very good undergrads but you really need a graduate degree after going to one of these schools and these schools train you well for that.

what does this mean? for finance this isn't true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

As the parent of a D1 recruit and a NESCAC recruit I can tell you that you are incorrect. Believe what you want but the standards are written, audited, and required. You should actually try a bit of research because there is plenty of materKal out there describing the process and standards.

My NESCAC athlete had a much higher academic bar than my Ivy athlete.

The bar was based on ability and need.

Not really, she was the top recruit for both NESCACs.

The NESCAC and Ivy athletes are actually the same athlete and currently play on a team in New Hampshire, you can guess the school. The academic bar there was lower than both Williams and Middlebury who also gave her offers. This is a constantly recurring conversation because people don’t want to accept that athletes can also be academically gifted. My kid had a 1560 so it wasn’t going to be an issue anywhere but the NESCAC had a higher standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People (general public and academics) consider these four the LAC equivalents of Ivy-tier signaling.
The next tier of schools Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, substantively have no difference.
Why do they give less Ivy-tier signaling power?

The SLACs have very little signalling power. They are very good undergrads but you really need a graduate degree after going to one of these schools and these schools train you well for that.

They have incredible signaling power for finance and consulting. They also have huge signaling g power for top grad schools, law schools, med schools, and business schools. They might not have a lot of signaling power for a medium size mid-western company but then nobody does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

As the parent of a D1 recruit and a NESCAC recruit I can tell you that you are incorrect. Believe what you want but the standards are written, audited, and required. You should actually try a bit of research because there is plenty of materKal out there describing the process and standards.

My NESCAC athlete had a much higher academic bar than my Ivy athlete.

The bar was based on ability and need.

Not really, she was the top recruit for both NESCACs.

The NESCAC and Ivy athletes are actually the same athlete and currently play on a team in New Hampshire, you can guess the school. The academic bar there was lower than both Williams and Middlebury who also gave her offers. This is a constantly recurring conversation because people don’t want to accept that athletes can also be academically gifted. My kid had a 1560 so it wasn’t going to be an issue anywhere but the NESCAC had a higher standard.

I agree with you that the bar is higher at NESCAC. I disagree about the academically gifted part. Usually, athletes match or are just below the mean for the academics of the school, and that varies as widely as colleges do. Of course, there are outliers but that's always true..

SO athletes are academically in step with the pool. And places like Amherst or Yale often say, we could fill our class 3x over with our pool. But for athletes - like donors, URM, or any other hooked group - what push them into the accept pile is if they're wanted by a coach.. Plenty of kids with 1560 with impressive resumes get shut out of schools that accept 5 out of 100 kids. My kids went to a high school where a 1500 SAT was the average. 1520 some years. 1560 was very usual. The difference btw who got into MIT or Williams or Princeton was usually legacy, athlete, questbridge. Which is not the same as saying they weren't academically gifted. They were. But no more so than the kids who won debate tournaments, placed in science competitions, was second chair in the city orchestra, or worked 25 hours a week all through school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

As the parent of a D1 recruit and a NESCAC recruit I can tell you that you are incorrect. Believe what you want but the standards are written, audited, and required. You should actually try a bit of research because there is plenty of materKal out there describing the process and standards.

My NESCAC athlete had a much higher academic bar than my Ivy athlete.

The bar was based on ability and need.

Not really, she was the top recruit for both NESCACs.

The NESCAC and Ivy athletes are actually the same athlete and currently play on a team in New Hampshire, you can guess the school. The academic bar there was lower than both Williams and Middlebury who also gave her offers. This is a constantly recurring conversation because people don’t want to accept that athletes can also be academically gifted. My kid had a 1560 so it wasn’t going to be an issue anywhere but the NESCAC had a higher standard.

I agree with you that the bar is higher at NESCAC. I disagree about the academically gifted part. Usually, athletes match or are just below the mean for the academics of the school, and that varies as widely as colleges do. Of course, there are outliers but that's always true..

SO athletes are academically in step with the pool. And places like Amherst or Yale often say, we could fill our class 3x over with our pool. But for athletes - like donors, URM, or any other hooked group - what push them into the accept pile is if they're wanted by a coach.. Plenty of kids with 1560 with impressive resumes get shut out of schools that accept 5 out of 100 kids. My kids went to a high school where a 1500 SAT was the average. 1520 some years. 1560 was very usual. The difference btw who got into MIT or Williams or Princeton was usually legacy, athlete, questbridge. Which is not the same as saying they weren't academically gifted. They were. But no more so than the kids who won debate tournaments, placed in science competitions, was second chair in the city orchestra, or worked 25 hours a week all through school.

Yes, of course. That's hooked admissions 101. The point is that NESCAC recruited athletes don't significantly pull down academic stats, and may not at all in many cases. FGLI stats will skew lower, which is understandable. Athletes, usually wealthy, plus top-stats academics kids typically have grown up with every advantage and support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

As the parent of a D1 recruit and a NESCAC recruit I can tell you that you are incorrect. Believe what you want but the standards are written, audited, and required. You should actually try a bit of research because there is plenty of materKal out there describing the process and standards.

My NESCAC athlete had a much higher academic bar than my Ivy athlete.

The bar was based on ability and need.

Not really, she was the top recruit for both NESCACs.

The NESCAC and Ivy athletes are actually the same athlete and currently play on a team in New Hampshire, you can guess the school. The academic bar there was lower than both Williams and Middlebury who also gave her offers. This is a constantly recurring conversation because people don’t want to accept that athletes can also be academically gifted. My kid had a 1560 so it wasn’t going to be an issue anywhere but the NESCAC had a higher standard.

I agree with you that the bar is higher at NESCAC. I disagree about the academically gifted part. Usually, athletes match or are just below the mean for the academics of the school, and that varies as widely as colleges do. Of course, there are outliers but that's always true..

SO athletes are academically in step with the pool. And places like Amherst or Yale often say, we could fill our class 3x over with our pool. But for athletes - like donors, URM, or any other hooked group - what push them into the accept pile is if they're wanted by a coach.. Plenty of kids with 1560 with impressive resumes get shut out of schools that accept 5 out of 100 kids. My kids went to a high school where a 1500 SAT was the average. 1520 some years. 1560 was very usual. The difference btw who got into MIT or Williams or Princeton was usually legacy, athlete, questbridge. Which is not the same as saying they weren't academically gifted. They were. But no more so than the kids who won debate tournaments, placed in science competitions, was second chair in the city orchestra, or worked 25 hours a week all through school.

Yes, of course. That's hooked admissions 101. The point is that NESCAC recruited athletes don't significantly pull down academic stats, and may not at all in many cases. FGLI stats will skew lower, which is understandable. Athletes, usually wealthy, plus top-stats academics kids typically have grown up with every advantage and support.

FGLI skew higher. The kids from Stuy, Bronx Sci, Brooklyn Tech, LACES, TAG in Dallas, TJ, Lowell, Walter Payton etc - which is where most top 10 colleges are getting 80%+ of their FGLI students - are not pulling down averages. Rural can, but those are small numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is embarrassing.

Exactly. Why? Cal them what lever acronym you want but there are people who apply and enroll in them. Their preference not yours. You do you.

[Anonymous]

*call

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

As the parent of a D1 recruit and a NESCAC recruit I can tell you that you are incorrect. Believe what you want but the standards are written, audited, and required. You should actually try a bit of research because there is plenty of materKal out there describing the process and standards.

My NESCAC athlete had a much higher academic bar than my Ivy athlete.

The bar was based on ability and need.

Not really, she was the top recruit for both NESCACs.

The NESCAC and Ivy athletes are actually the same athlete and currently play on a team in New Hampshire, you can guess the school. The academic bar there was lower than both Williams and Middlebury who also gave her offers. This is a constantly recurring conversation because people don’t want to accept that athletes can also be academically gifted. My kid had a 1560 so it wasn’t going to be an issue anywhere but the NESCAC had a higher standard.

I agree with you that the bar is higher at NESCAC. I disagree about the academically gifted part. Usually, athletes match or are just below the mean for the academics of the school, and that varies as widely as colleges do. Of course, there are outliers but that's always true..

SO athletes are academically in step with the pool. And places like Amherst or Yale often say, we could fill our class 3x over with our pool. But for athletes - like donors, URM, or any other hooked group - what push them into the accept pile is if they're wanted by a coach.. Plenty of kids with 1560 with impressive resumes get shut out of schools that accept 5 out of 100 kids. My kids went to a high school where a 1500 SAT was the average. 1520 some years. 1560 was very usual. The difference btw who got into MIT or Williams or Princeton was usually legacy, athlete, questbridge. Which is not the same as saying they weren't academically gifted. They were. But no more so than the kids who won debate tournaments, placed in science competitions, was second chair in the city orchestra, or worked 25 hours a week all through school.

Yes, of course. That's hooked admissions 101. The point is that NESCAC recruited athletes don't significantly pull down academic stats, and may not at all in many cases. FGLI stats will skew lower, which is understandable. Athletes, usually wealthy, plus top-stats academics kids typically have grown up with every advantage and support.

FGLI skew higher. The kids from Stuy, Bronx Sci, Brooklyn Tech, LACES, TAG in Dallas, TJ, Lowell, Walter Payton etc - which is where most top 10 colleges are getting 80%+ of their FGLI students - are not pulling down averages. Rural can, but those are small numbers.

Rural are not low numbers anymore. Currently strong Amherst target in order to boost diversity without breaking the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People (general public and academics) consider these four the LAC equivalents of Ivy-tier signaling.
The next tier of schools Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, substantively have no difference.
Why do they give less Ivy-tier signaling power?

The SLACs have very little signalling power. They are very good undergrads but you really need a graduate degree after going to one of these schools and these schools train you well for that.

Agree. I know, however, a lot of Ivy grads who still pursued MBAs at Harvard, etc. so not as if the only folks headed to grad are from SLACs. TBH, a lot of academics hold SLAC ug degrees.