Ivy League admission rate for Class of 2018

[Anonymous]

Grade inflation is rampant.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/11/22/as-yale-talks-grade-deflation-princeton-pulls-back/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:11:34 This is just plain wrong. I personally know the parents of two Ivy athlete recruits, one from the DC area and one from out of state, and their SAT/ACT score thresholds were lower. It was discussed by the coaches, the pressure to attain the threshold is fierce. Your child might be in college with athletic recruits from DC area schools, but does he/she discuss their test scores? One recruit who hesitated at an offer was told by the coach that she was preferred over another candidate because her scores were higher. And they just made the cutoff.

11:34 here. I don't quite get your points. You mention there is a threshold/cut-off but you don't say what it was. I've heard of these thresholds too, but unless the threshold was 1800 and not something like 2100, I don't see how it is a "lower" threshold. Also, you don't mention specific SAT scores in your example about the recruit who was preferred because of higher scores -- so are we taking 1800 being preferred over 1500, or is it more like 2300 is preferred to 2100?

Re my DD's experience, DD said several of the athletic recruits are NMSSFs (PSATs). That's enough for me to suspect their SATs are pretty darn good, too.

[Anonymous]

Elite colleges know something that many straight A high school students (and their parents) haven't figured out yet: academic success is only one measure of an applicant's potential. Harvard and other schools of that ilk aren't merely looking for kids who are going to succeed as college students, but who are going to make their mark as adults through interesting/meaningful/lucrative pursuits that reinforce the school's reputation, feeds its endowment, and inspires other awesome people to apply to Harvard et al too.

As my husband and I help our kids through the college process, I try to imagine being an admissions officer, looking for signs of authenticity in a sea of club presidencies, real vs. lightweight AP courses, regional sports awards, and my personal favorite, "service projects" performed by kids who have never worked a day their in the lives. At least with legacies and athletes, these schools know what they're getting. But all the cookie cutter star students must be very, very difficult to differentiate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development cases? What percentage? I bet single digits. Legacy admits constitute a crazy amount -- 30% at Harvard as of 2011 (not sure it remained the same for more recent admissions cycles).
How could being a legacy hurt?

I bet 1-5% of an entering class, depending on the college. There just aren't enough multi-millionares' kids who can also handle the workload at a highly competitive universities. Harvard is *not* going to accept a kid who is guaranteed to flunk out, no matter what some of you think.

do you know how hard it is to flunk out of harvard?

in a soft major hyp would be much easier than a flagship state school.

not everyone at harvard takes math 55.

Do you know how hard it is? I do, because I know of one kid who did flunk out of Harvard. And we're not talking a Gates or Zuckerberg who chose to leave the place, but somebody who was kicked out because of bad grades.

I know people always say things like, "the hardest thing about Harvard is getting in." But that's a really pat, easy thing to say and, more problematic for this discussion, it ignores a key distinction. It might be true that the high caliber, super-striving kids who earned one of those 6% admissions slots may be able to cruise there, but the development slacker kid is going to be graded on a curve against those 6% kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges know something that many straight A high school students (and their parents) haven't figured out yet: academic success is only one measure of an applicant's potential. Harvard and other schools of that ilk aren't merely looking for kids who are going to succeed as college students, but who are going to make their mark as adults through interesting/meaningful/lucrative pursuits that reinforce the school's reputation, feeds its endowment, and inspires other awesome people to apply to Harvard et al too.

As my husband and I help our kids through the college process, I try to imagine being an admissions officer, looking for signs of authenticity in a sea of club presidencies, real vs. lightweight AP courses, regional sports awards, and my personal favorite, "service projects" performed by kids who have never worked a day their in the lives. At least with legacies and athletes, these schools know what they're getting. But all the cookie cutter star students must be very, very difficult to differentiate.

13:34 here. Exactly. My DC who got into a top ivy without any hooks got there because of a genuine passion, and not because of SATs which were over 2100, but not by much. In the spirit of full disclosure, DC did have a GPA of 3.9 and one club presidency, but nothing like some of the resumes I've seen that were packed with multiple club presidencies. Instead, DC worked very hard on this passion and got recommendations from top people nationally who were familiar with DC and DC's work.

[Anonymous]

13:12 Just curious: Did the people writing recommendations have ties to the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are wrong, once you get in, one has to work very hard to flunk out. This is well known. Just google Harvard grade inflation. It is a shame, well not really, the name on the degree is more important vs gpa.

I've heard this too, but with more subtlety and nuance. The way you write it, it comes off as a cheap and easy thing that jealous folk like to say. I'm sure that's not you, but that's the image that comes across, just so you know.

In reality, most of the kids who do get into Harvard are the super-strivers that everybody on this board loves to mock as "psychotic." Sure, once these kids get into Harvard--and they no longer have to captain 3 sports teams and run 12 clubs while they're taking 12 APs--college might look easy by comparison. Even Harvard is going to be easy compared to their high school, resume-building lives.

But the development snowflake with no work ethic is going to be in for a shock. Yes, you still do have to write well there, and you have to pass the tests. That's why Harvard will only take development cases who can at least somewhat hold their own in a student body of "psychotic strivers."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:12 Just curious: Did the people writing recommendations have ties to the school?

No. One of them even checked his iPad contact list to see, right in front of my DC. He found he knew an adjunct prof there (or some similar level), but he decided it wasn't worth pursuing.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, PP. You must be proud of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are wrong, once you get in, one has to work very hard to flunk out. This is well known. Just google Harvard grade inflation. It is a shame, well not really, the name on the degree is more important vs gpa.

I've heard this too, but with more subtlety and nuance. The way you write it, it comes off as a cheap and easy thing that jealous folk like to say. I'm sure that's not you, but that's the image that comes across, just so you know.

In reality, most of the kids who do get into Harvard are the super-strivers that everybody on this board loves to mock as "psychotic." Sure, once these kids get into Harvard--and they no longer have to captain 3 sports teams and run 12 clubs while they're taking 12 APs--college might look easy by comparison. Even Harvard is going to be easy compared to their high school, resume-building lives.

But the development snowflake with no work ethic is going to be in for a shock. Yes, you still do have to write well there, and you have to pass the tests. That's why Harvard will only take development cases who can at least somewhat hold their own in a student body of "psychotic strivers."

That's what sickens me - that stupid assed effort to be a save the world type who shows leadership skills just to look good to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are wrong, once you get in, one has to work very hard to flunk out. This is well known. Just google Harvard grade inflation. It is a shame, well not really, the name on the degree is more important vs gpa.

I've heard this too, but with more subtlety and nuance. The way you write it, it comes off as a cheap and easy thing that jealous folk like to say. I'm sure that's not you, but that's the image that comes across, just so you know.

In reality, most of the kids who do get into Harvard are the super-strivers that everybody on this board loves to mock as "psychotic." Sure, once these kids get into Harvard--and they no longer have to captain 3 sports teams and run 12 clubs while they're taking 12 APs--college might look easy by comparison. Even Harvard is going to be easy compared to their high school, resume-building lives.

But the development snowflake with no work ethic is going to be in for a shock. Yes, you still do have to write well there, and you have to pass the tests. That's why Harvard will only take development cases who can at least somewhat hold their own in a student body of "psychotic strivers."

That's what sickens me - that stupid assed effort to be a save the world type who shows leadership skills just to look good to someone else.

Fine by me. Go ahead and assume that every effort to save the world is part of some hypocritical effort to get into Harvard. I'm sure nobody can convince you that even 10% of it is genuine. Just realize that you contradict yourself when you say, out of the other side of your mouth, that nobody at Harvard does a lick of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, PP. You must be proud of her.

thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are wrong, once you get in, one has to work very hard to flunk out. This is well known. Just google Harvard grade inflation. It is a shame, well not really, the name on the degree is more important vs gpa.

I've heard this too, but with more subtlety and nuance. The way you write it, it comes off as a cheap and easy thing that jealous folk like to say. I'm sure that's not you, but that's the image that comes across, just so you know.

In reality, most of the kids who do get into Harvard are the super-strivers that everybody on this board loves to mock as "psychotic." Sure, once these kids get into Harvard--and they no longer have to captain 3 sports teams and run 12 clubs while they're taking 12 APs--college might look easy by comparison. Even Harvard is going to be easy compared to their high school, resume-building lives.

But the development snowflake with no work ethic is going to be in for a shock. Yes, you still do have to write well there, and you have to pass the tests. That's why Harvard will only take development cases who can at least somewhat hold their own in a student body of "psychotic strivers."

That's what sickens me - that stupid assed effort to be a save the world type who shows leadership skills just to look good to someone else.

But students are forced to do this by the whole process. But along the way they may actually enjoy some of these clubs or learn something by performing community service. I think it is just as crazy that they need to figure out their "passion" before they go to college. That is great for kids who figure it out but isn't that what college is for or what life is for.

[Anonymous]

I bet if Harvard just one year admitted an entire class of normal students - A/B students with an occasional C, students that worked at the Dairy Queen,played a sport or belonged to a club or two, those students could thrive at a place like Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development cases? What percentage? I bet single digits. Legacy admits constitute a crazy amount -- 30% at Harvard as of 2011 (not sure it remained the same for more recent admissions cycles).
How could being a legacy hurt?

Most legacies get in because they have the grades, test scores, and accomplishments to independently achieve admission on their own merit, like the previous poster who provided their child's impressive stats. I have heard that, in some cases, it is actually more difficult for an independently accomplished and qualified legacy of one top-25 school to be admitted to another top-25 school, because the other school(s) (who want healthy yield stats) work under the assumption that the legacy will likely prefer the parent's alma mater over them.

I know, personally, one family legacy of the Ivies (three past family members went) who kid met all the criteria to get in, but he refused to pay the 150K donation (read extortion) to the legacy fund, so she went somewhere else.