Big 3 (or thereabouts) College Results - Class of 2021

[Anonymous]

Is it really true that two students from GDS got into MIT EA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

[Anonymous]

The real question is why are athletics part of admission to a school at all?

And yes, I was a college athlete and my kids are athletic so you can leave your comments in the basket by the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real question is why are athletics part of admission to a school at all?

And yes, I was a college athlete and my kids are athletic so you can leave your comments in the basket by the door.

In most countries, they aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real question is why are athletics part of admission to a school at all?

And yes, I was a college athlete and my kids are athletic so you can leave your comments in the basket by the door.

You know the answer already. Money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people bother with EDs anyway? Don't half of the spots go to recruited athletes?

The purpose of ED is to facilitate a school having its " knowns known" and being able to then set its budget, particularly in regard to FA. A certain portion of ED admits will be legacies and development cases- often one and the same. A former AD at Princeton wrote a good piece on this AKA the " Chancellor's List "

Then comes the top pick athletes that the school really wants and that might need FA

The percentage of each of those pots that ends up being offered admission depends on the school- and even the year.

Penn def favors legacy more than most other Ivy League school and I think I read on college confidential that 30 % of their class is legacy admit and 300 of their ED spots were filled by athletes. Certainly that is A LOT, but its not half the ED spots offered at Penn- most actually go to legacies.

Think of the Trumps.

I don't think they did any sports....

Other Ivy league schools admit as low as 12% of class coming from legacy and give more FA to bright kids from low income homes- as in HHI less than 75K a year.

Don't assume athletes are not academically qualified. People may wish to believe that, but at DC's school at least one recruited athlete was also a NMSF and many were honorable mention. Most take only AP/ honors and are also nationally ranked in their sport.

Trumps didn't get in as Freshmen; junior year transfers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

There are lots of examples of very talented people who are good in multiple domains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

There are lots of examples of very talented people who are good in multiple domains.

That’s great and I don’t doubt it. Those folks can get into college on their brains. It’s a school, not a sports club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Wrong. Why do you think that the academic threshold for athletes is different than the general population. Yes there are exceptions. Olympic athletes are freaks and not your average college athlete. Those people have 1 in 100 million skills that would allow them to be successful almost anywhere. Having said that, not every olympic athlete is a michael phelps. for every one of him there are a half dozen ryan lochtes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Wrong. Why do you think that the academic threshold for athletes is different than the general population. Yes there are exceptions. Olympic athletes are freaks and not your average college athlete. Those people have 1 in 100 million skills that would allow them to be successful almost anywhere. Having said that, not every olympic athlete is a michael phelps. for every one of him there are a half dozen ryan lochtes.

What does this even mean? Because Michael Phelps is an amazing athlete but Ryan Lochte--the second best American swimmer ever--is not??? Or are you trying to say something about intelligence? Michael Phelps didn't graduate from college, but Lochte did. And Lochte went to U of FL, not Harvard, so I don't think he's the type of athlete people are complaining about. The types of athletes people are complaining about are those going to the most competitive schools. So people like Maya Dirado (Stanford), Katie Ledecky (Stanford), Dean Farris (Harvard), Ryan Murphy (Cal). Do you people really think these swimmers shouldn't have been admitted to these schools? Maya Dirado had a perfect score on the math portion of her SAT at 15, entered Stanford at 17 and went on to win Olympic medals. One of the top swim recruits at Stanford for this year is from this area and has perfect GPA from what I understand. Are there swimmers (and other athletes) who aren't super bright? Sure, but they aren't going to Stanford, Harvard, etc. The idea that Ivies and other top schools are admitting a bunch of knuckleheads is ridiculous, at least with respect to certain sports, swimming being the prime example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

As a former college athlete I remember this debate well. I also remember the people who immediately made assumptions about me once they learned I was an athlete on a scholarship.

I have since noticed that truly intelligent people are not given to make assumptions about others- or be jealous.

To insist against evidence that a person can be a gifted athlete and very intelligent is reflective of something other than fact though.

Perhaps this idea persists not just because of envy, but because athletic ability is on display and measured in competition weekly whereas who is to say who is really a genius.

So my kid got a 36 or a 1600 and has a 4.0. Unless she wins a Nobel prize or a Pulitzer how is it to be established that she is also a great intellect ?

KInda like with athletics, intellectual gifts are decades to fruition- if the person does reach their potential.

So a kid got a 36- and gets into Harvard or Stanford or MIT. They are still just a 17 year old and this proves Zero

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

So if it’s a difference if a very talented athlete with a 1470 SAT and 3.9 GPA(with difficult coursework in HS), vs yet another non athlete 4.3 and 1565 SAT applicant, they want some variety of skills and personality. Doesn’t mean the athlete isn’t very bright and highly able. If you are talking a 1250 SAT and 3.1 GPA student athlete taking a spot at Harvard because of athletic ability that would be different and not fair IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:ok so your kid knows one smart athlete. when you get to a top college it is striking how different the academic strengths are of the athletes vs the non athlete.

I was an athlete in college and its always amusing to me that some people feel the need to put young people in categories.

If you are an Olympic swimmer ... OK cool, but the law of nature is assumed to be that that's all you got and you are - aside from that an idiot.

To the contrary, what is born out is that being a really good athlete takes more than talent. It requires a great deal of perseverance, determination, high pain threshold and enough of an imagination to dream big... then never give up.

In other words, after 3 hours a day of that for 4-6 years since age 13, AP Physics might just be a walk in the park. Especially, if Dad was a science geek.

I was an Ivy league athlete. While there were exceptions, my teammates were nowhere near as intellectual, well educated or thoughtful as my friends who weren't on the team. Some teams had a higher level of academics (mens crew, most womens sports), but the men's teams, gimme a break...

when was this, 1990? I think things have changed a bit in Ivy admissions since you attended...

Not according to the Harvard data.

The issue isn't whether athletic recruits are minimally qualified academically for Harvard, it's whether they are equally academically qualified compared to non-athletes, such as musicians who have practiced 3 hours day for many years. In most cases, as a group, athletes had inferior academic qualifications. It doesn't mean they aren't intelligent on an absolute basis, though.

As a former college athlete I remember this debate well. I also remember the people who immediately made assumptions about me once they learned I was an athlete on a scholarship.

I have since noticed that truly intelligent people are not given to make assumptions about others- or be jealous.

To insist against evidence that a person can be a gifted athlete and very intelligent is reflective of something other than fact though.

Perhaps this idea persists not just because of envy, but because athletic ability is on display and measured in competition weekly whereas who is to say who is really a genius.

So my kid got a 36 or a 1600 and has a 4.0. Unless she wins a Nobel prize or a Pulitzer how is it to be established that she is also a great intellect ?

KInda like with athletics, intellectual gifts are decades to fruition- if the person does reach their potential.

So a kid got a 36- and gets into Harvard or Stanford or MIT. They are still just a 17 year old and this proves Zero

95% of Harvard athletes are not top athletes. They don’t go pro or to the Olympics. Even 75% of Stanford athletes don’t. So let’s not pretend they’re something they’re not.

These aren’t assumptions. There is actual admissions data from the Harvard lawsuit that shows that the majority of recruited athletes would not have been admitted based on their academic ratings. Sure academic potential is a guess but it’s one the college makes every year and that’s what they’re supposed to do. How is giving a leg up to the 500th best running back in the country a positive?