The share of academically strong, unhooked students in the Top 20 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really bothers me when people keep bringing up race. Serious students exist in every race.

You'd think. But there is enormous differentiation overall in real life academic performance between white and asian students and black and latino students.

The upside is that this generation of 18 year olds is very mixed so old racial patterns don't matter so much. It'd be a dumb way to determine anything. There are millions of 18 year olds that can choose multiple boxes today. Race is becoming less relevant every year.

and? Affirmative action is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are these concerns coming from? The news? I know a lot of college kids, including my own, and this doesn’t seem to be an actual problem.

Maybe I’m overthinking or influenced by the news, but I get the impression that many students at top schools are wealthy and/or not very engaged academically. Either that or there are some students prioritize finding internships or jobs over attending classes. Plus the news about under-qualified students (UCSD).

Ok, I think you’re conflating a ton of different issues. Many schools are more pre-professional than they used to be, but that doesn’t mean the students aren’t academically strong. They’re just more interested in “employable” majors. You might not like this trend but it’s unrelated to the issues you raise.

Secondly, wealth and academic achievement are highly correlated in this country. Wealthy kids are often very smart and well prepared. They’ve benefited from strong education. It’s strange to assume that they would not be prepared college students nor academically focused.

Third, pretty much every school, even the most podunk, will have a cohort of high achieving kids.

Many students are monetarily focused. They get very little out of a top school academically, but a ton in connections.

[Anonymous]

The legacy, athlete, fake spike kids etc may not be "dumb." In fact, they may be on par with the regular unhooked kid, or close to on par. But the former is always going to get priority, leaving the latter to pick up the scraps.

In other words, the OP's premise may be true while at the same time, the priority kids are actually qualified. That is, two things can be true at the same time.

But it does help the average excellent kid understand their odds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really bothers me when people keep bringing up race. Serious students exist in every race.

You'd think. But there is enormous differentiation overall in real life academic performance between white and Asian students and black and Latino students.

The upside is that this generation of 18 year olds is very mixed so old racial patterns don't matter so much. It'd be a dumb way to determine anything. There are millions of 18 year olds that can choose multiple boxes today. Race is becoming less relevant every year.

I get that, but at research-heavy universities, there are plenty of students who are really passionate about learning and debating ideas. Higher education should focus on advancing knowledge, not on social justice in ways that slow intellectual progress or selling brands for the sake of vanity reasons.

Private Institutions should be able to focus on their institutional priorities, admitting whomever they desire by whatever criteria they prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really bothers me when people keep bringing up race. Serious students exist in every race.

You'd think. But there is enormous differentiation overall in real life academic performance between white and Asian students and black and Latino students.

The upside is that this generation of 18 year olds is very mixed so old racial patterns don't matter so much. It'd be a dumb way to determine anything. There are millions of 18 year olds that can choose multiple boxes today. Race is becoming less relevant every year.

I get that, but at research-heavy universities, there are plenty of students who are really passionate about learning and debating ideas. Higher education should focus on advancing knowledge, not on social justice in ways that slow intellectual progress or selling brands for the sake of vanity reasons.

Private Institutions should be able to focus on their institutional priorities, admitting whomever they desire by whatever criteria they prefer.

This just means their goal isn't education but something else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are these concerns coming from? The news? I know a lot of college kids, including my own, and this doesn’t seem to be an actual problem.

Maybe I’m overthinking or influenced by the news, but I get the impression that many students at top schools are wealthy and/or not very engaged academically. Either that or there are some students prioritize finding internships or jobs over attending classes. Plus the news about under-qualified students (UCSD).

Ok, I think you’re conflating a ton of different issues. Many schools are more pre-professional than they used to be, but that doesn’t mean the students aren’t academically strong. They’re just more interested in “employable” majors. You might not like this trend but it’s unrelated to the issues you raise.

Secondly, wealth and academic achievement are highly correlated in this country. Wealthy kids are often very smart and well prepared. They’ve benefited from strong education. It’s strange to assume that they would not be prepared college students nor academically focused.

Third, pretty much every school, even the most podunk, will have a cohort of high achieving kids.

Many students are monetarily focused. They get very little out of a top school academically, but a ton in connections.

But the opportunity cost is high, four years and half a million tuitions for the unknown outcomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I asked AI to calculate the ratio to rule out the hooked admit:
* Athletic recruit
* Legacy or donation
* Academically compromised groups
* Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes

It leaves 25% of the student body. Does this sound about right? Do we have higher ratio in public universities than private?

That sounds about right for SWAP. 1/3 atheletes, 1/3 FGLI, some legacies and donors, about 1/4 unhooked high stats.

Probably higher at ivies and T20s. Not sure how much.

My daughter is at one of these schools and there’s a lot of overlap between FGLI and athletes, at least in the freshman class. Definitely a large chunk of unhooked overachievers, way more than 25%. They don’t do legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:- who is this? Academically compromised groups
‘

Morons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I asked AI to calculate the ratio to rule out the hooked admit:
* Athletic recruit
* Legacy or donation
* Academically compromised groups
* Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes

It leaves 25% of the student body. Does this sound about right? Do we have higher ratio in public universities than private?

That sounds about right for SWAP. 1/3 atheletes, 1/3 FGLI, some legacies and donors, about 1/4 unhooked high stats.

Probably higher at ivies and T20s. Not sure how much.

My daughter is at one of these schools and there’s a lot of overlap between FGLI and athletes, at least in the freshman class. Definitely a large chunk of unhooked overachievers, way more than 25%. They don’t do legacy.

Nice try but false. That’s just your daughter’s false impression. Data is data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really bothers me when people keep bringing up race. Serious students exist in every race.

You'd think. But there is enormous differentiation overall in real life academic performance between white and Asian students and black and Latino students.

The upside is that this generation of 18 year olds is very mixed so old racial patterns don't matter so much. It'd be a dumb way to determine anything. There are millions of 18 year olds that can choose multiple boxes today. Race is becoming less relevant every year.

I get that, but at research-heavy universities, there are plenty of students who are really passionate about learning and debating ideas. Higher education should focus on advancing knowledge, not on social justice in ways that slow intellectual progress or selling brands for the sake of vanity reasons.

Private Institutions should be able to focus on their institutional priorities, admitting whomever they desire by whatever criteria they prefer.

This just means their goal isn't education but something else

I would say isn't just education. It never has been just about education at any top school including MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I asked AI to calculate the ratio to rule out the hooked admit:
* Athletic recruit
* Legacy or donation
* Academically compromised groups
* Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes

It leaves 25% of the student body. Does this sound about right? Do we have higher ratio in public universities than private?

Ask ChatGPT more questions to get your answer.

Bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the size of the school. Smaller schools leave less room for the unhooked.

For an average Ivy-sized T20, 25% seems reasonable. I guess that means a school with a 10% acceptance rate is actually ~2.5% for the unhooked. Again, seems reasonable.

From my experiences, yes: this sounds accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I asked AI to calculate the ratio to rule out the hooked admit:
* Athletic recruit
* Legacy or donation
* Academically compromised groups
* Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes

It leaves 25% of the student body. Does this sound about right? Do we have higher ratio in public universities than private?

Based on two kids at different ivy/T10:

They are Stem kids, engineering &/or premed with science major, one is both, in case those interest areas are less likely for athletic recruits and less qualified other hooks. About 67-75% of student body in their classes seems to be 1500+ kids who are engaged in learning, participate in discussions, work hard on labs. The rest it is sometimes surprising how they got in, some are hooked and some are not--some are definitely over-pushed by snowplow parents who moved all barriers out of the way. These are by far the minority and it is honestly sad: they are in ivies yet have no chance of being above the median, extra time in the world does not help for rigorous stem classes.
The ones who are well below the median and get called in by professors to meet or consider withdraw-pass tend to be hooked kids, though that is not always known.
Maybe different for easier majors that hooked kids most likely have? The famous/rich donor types and recruited athletes known through clubs or general-distribution humanities courses all seem to have known "easier" majors, urban studies, sociology, etc. Some are highly engaged. Some do not belong at the school academically.

SLACs with higher % recruits probably have a higher percent hooked out of all students. Maybe public has a lower % hooked who knows, but not a single public institution has high proportion of super-high acheivers like the ivies do. Pre-TO data shows this. Heck TO data shows it with the number of 1530 + (see the recent thread). If your kid is a super high achiever 1570+ type with top rigor and a pile of 5s, the best schools for a high ratio of intellectual peers are ivies, MIT, stanford. Even UChicago does not have "ivy" ratios anymore, given how low in the class they admit ED compared to ivy
+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I asked AI to calculate the ratio to rule out the hooked admit:
* Athletic recruit
* Legacy or donation
* Academically compromised groups
* Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes

It leaves 25% of the student body. Does this sound about right? Do we have higher ratio in public universities than private?

Based on two kids at different ivy/T10:

They are Stem kids, engineering &/or premed with science major, one is both, in case those interest areas are less likely for athletic recruits and less qualified other hooks. About 67-75% of student body in their classes seems to be 1500+ kids who are engaged in learning, participate in discussions, work hard on labs. The rest it is sometimes surprising how they got in, some are hooked and some are not--some are definitely over-pushed by snowplow parents who moved all barriers out of the way. These are by far the minority and it is honestly sad: they are in ivies yet have no chance of being above the median, extra time in the world does not help for rigorous stem classes.
The ones who are well below the median and get called in by professors to meet or consider withdraw-pass tend to be hooked kids, though that is not always known.
Maybe different for easier majors that hooked kids most likely have? The famous/rich donor types and recruited athletes known through clubs or general-distribution humanities courses all seem to have known "easier" majors, urban studies, sociology, etc. Some are highly engaged. Some do not belong at the school academically.

SLACs with higher % recruits probably have a higher percent hooked out of all students. Maybe public has a lower % hooked who knows, but not a single public institution has high proportion of super-high acheivers like the ivies do. Pre-TO data shows this. Heck TO data shows it with the number of 1530 + (see the recent thread). If your kid is a super high achiever 1570+ type with top rigor and a pile of 5s, the best schools for a high ratio of intellectual peers are ivies, MIT, stanford. Even UChicago does not have "ivy" ratios anymore, given how low in the class they admit ED compared to ivy
+.

You are FOS and just spewing stuff out of your @rse. I also have 2 kids at Ivies and they do not know all of that personal data about all of the other students in their class.

Your “kid” doesn’t either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you can criticize AI, but honestly, we don’t have any clear truth anywhere. You can criticize other people too, but you don’t have the answers either. And no one can really say higher education is working the way it should when the news keeps reporting that employers would rather use AI than hire entry-level workers.

There’s another obvious explanation that has nothing to do with higher education.