College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive: Super High Stat Kids are not "a dime a dozen."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

Give a break. Those contributions to communities stop as soon as they get the acceptance. Do you think the people working on wall st or silicon vally have time for ECs? hah

We do. I’m here everyone schooling clueless fools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most people saying US schools should be more like foreign schools don't actually want to go to those foreign schools over top US schools.

+100000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In his Substack post "College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive," Arjun Panickssery argues that the intense competition for admission to top U.S. universities is not inevitable.

He suggests that factors like affirmative action, legacy preferences, institutional priorities, and athletic recruitment, rather than a vast oversupply of talent, drive the "rat race."

He notes that the top 20 schools enroll about 49,000 students annually (1.3% of high school graduates), and, the talent pool with high SAT scores (e.g., 1550+) isn’t as large as perceived—there are actually not that many "high stat" kids.

He also compares US admissions to admissions abroad and that the colleges abroad make their stats and requirements clear and limit the number of colleges students can apply to which is way less stressful and is rooted in merit not holistic admissions.

https://arjunpanickssery.substack.com/p/college-admissions-doesnt-need-to

I've had two unhooked kids get into HYP who did not have a 1550. higher than 1500, but not 1550.

So move the needle down to 1500 and there are really a lot of high stats kids.

also, take out about 20% of the 49,000 kids for athletes.

First you need to take out 20,000 spots because UCB and UCLA aren’t T20 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

You are assuming that MIT and Cornell care. Newsflash, they don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

as opposed to a class of kids who need remedial math at harvard

Agree. Harvard adding remedial ALGEBRA is insane. There are literally no excuses for it. Most kids finish algebra in 9th grade.

8th

Mine completed MVC in utero, so …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

You are assuming that MIT and Cornell care. Newsflash, they don’t.

I suspect MIT would care, given that they were among the first to go back to test required. There is a huge difference in competence between someone who got 98% of questions right vs. someone who got 61% right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In his Substack post "College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive," Arjun Panickssery argues that the intense competition for admission to top U.S. universities is not inevitable.

He suggests that factors like affirmative action, legacy preferences, institutional priorities, and athletic recruitment, rather than a vast oversupply of talent, drive the "rat race."

He notes that the top 20 schools enroll about 49,000 students annually (1.3% of high school graduates), and, the talent pool with high SAT scores (e.g., 1550+) isn’t as large as perceived—there are actually not that many "high stat" kids.

He also compares US admissions to admissions abroad and that the colleges abroad make their stats and requirements clear and limit the number of colleges students can apply to which is way less stressful and is rooted in merit not holistic admissions.

https://arjunpanickssery.substack.com/p/college-admissions-doesnt-need-to

I've had two unhooked kids get into HYP who did not have a 1550. higher than 1500, but not 1550.

So move the needle down to 1500 and there are really a lot of high stats kids.

also, take out about 20% of the 49,000 kids for athletes.

First you need to take out 20,000 spots because UCB and UCLA aren’t T20 schools.

Show us on the doll where the UCs hurt you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

as opposed to a class of kids who need remedial math at harvard

Agree. Harvard adding remedial ALGEBRA is insane. There are literally no excuses for it. Most kids finish algebra in 9th grade.

8th

Mine completed MVC in utero, so …

Waitlisted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

High test score does not equal “intellectual.” Holistic admissions is designed to create an interesting intellectual community. That’s why backgrounds and experiences matter—they are what develop your intellect and your perspectives. And I say this as the parent of one kid with a perfect ACT score and another who struggled on standardized tests; this factor has NO correlation with who they are intellectually and what they bring to a university community.

The very brightest/highest IQ kids often struggle in the real world. I believe on balance it's better to be on the high side of average. Otherwise you get stuck in the role of Cassandra...nobody else can see what you see. Unless you're also blessed with high EQ and IQ. The SATs do not measure EQ.

UMC families often tend to have high EQ as well as privilege. But lots of smart people are not so smart. I have lots of political issues at work dealing with people who are slow to catch on. But I got a free ride to grad school, in part based on 98%ile GMATs.

The reason why cookie-cutter high stats kids have trouble competing is precisely because they are on a planned track for their whole lives.

A lot of high SAT math is really just traceable to prepping and early focus on skills. US public K-12 does that poorly. Yet, for most professions, none of that type of math is used on a daily basis. It's just part of the weed out track for STEM professions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In his Substack post "College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive," Arjun Panickssery argues that the intense competition for admission to top U.S. universities is not inevitable.

He suggests that factors like affirmative action, legacy preferences, institutional priorities, and athletic recruitment, rather than a vast oversupply of talent, drive the "rat race."

He notes that the top 20 schools enroll about 49,000 students annually (1.3% of high school graduates), and, the talent pool with high SAT scores (e.g., 1550+) isn’t as large as perceived—there are actually not that many "high stat" kids.

He also compares US admissions to admissions abroad and that the colleges abroad make their stats and requirements clear and limit the number of colleges students can apply to which is way less stressful and is rooted in merit not holistic admissions.

https://arjunpanickssery.substack.com/p/college-admissions-doesnt-need-to

I've had two unhooked kids get into HYP who did not have a 1550. higher than 1500, but not 1550.

So move the needle down to 1500 and there are really a lot of high stats kids.

also, take out about 20% of the 49,000 kids for athletes.

First you need to take out 20,000 spots because UCB and UCLA aren’t T20 schools.

Show us on the doll where the UCs hurt you.

The UCs are great schools for some but the 49,000 premise falls apart if you include two huge state flagships who aren’t traditional T20 schools but constitute 40% of his “pool”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

as opposed to a class of kids who need remedial math at harvard

Agree. Harvard adding remedial ALGEBRA is insane. There are literally no excuses for it. Most kids finish algebra in 9th grade.

8th

Mine completed MVC in utero, so …

Waitlisted?

Yes, and all of those DE classes taken during the Montessori years didn’t even accrue to the transcript of the miserable public they ended up at!

[Anonymous]

I don’t care about my doctor’s SAT score or my kid’s teacher’s SAT score or the engineer’s SAT score as long as they can do their jobs well. I’m not downplaying hard work or academic achievement. However, there is more than one “path” for demonstrating competency in a lot of fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

+1 But many Ivies are 15%+ with legacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

High test score does not equal “intellectual.” Holistic admissions is designed to create an interesting intellectual community. That’s why backgrounds and experiences matter—they are what develop your intellect and your perspectives. And I say this as the parent of one kid with a perfect ACT score and another who struggled on standardized tests; this factor has NO correlation with who they are intellectually and what they bring to a university community.

The very brightest/highest IQ kids often struggle in the real world. I believe on balance it's better to be on the high side of average. Otherwise you get stuck in the role of Cassandra...nobody else can see what you see. Unless you're also blessed with high EQ and IQ. The SATs do not measure EQ.

UMC families often tend to have high EQ as well as privilege. But lots of smart people are not so smart. I have lots of political issues at work dealing with people who are slow to catch on. But I got a free ride to grad school, in part based on 98%ile GMATs.

The reason why cookie-cutter high stats kids have trouble competing is precisely because they are on a planned track for their whole lives.

A lot of high SAT math is really just traceable to prepping and early focus on skills. US public K-12 does that poorly. Yet, for most professions, none of that type of math is used on a daily basis. It's just part of the weed out track for STEM professions.

I honestly do not know what the SAT looks like today, but it used to be the case that a lifetime of reading was better prep than cramming. A mature reading comprehension is more than just "early focus on skills." Is it no longer like that today?

In any case, I agree with you that stats may be more relevant for STEM careers. Would we want the medical board exam to be easy? Do we want to choose our our structural engineers holistically? Probably not. This is why I do prefer the UK system where the exam requirements are relevant to the course of study.