Stats for Carnegie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following - DD is interested in Economics and Statistics

My guy is starting his second year there in econ and he loves it. That said, they really do believe it's "in the work" and he says there is a fair amount of stress. In terms of admissions, he had been urged by his HS to apply to some Ivies and Chicago, so you have a sense of where he might theoretically have been, but he did not get into any of them. That said, CMU econ is not the impossible-to-get-into program that CS is.

One more thing - the campus is very diverse, and by diverse, I mean it runs from east Asian, to south Asian, and back, with some white along the way. My guy hits two or three of those metrics and is fine with that, but some of the middle-class white families I grew up with decades ago would have found CMU's culture to be a bridge too far, back then.

First paragraph right-on, bolded utterly useless and unnecessary.

My white DD just came back from a summer program at CMU and she loved how international it was. She said everyone seemed fluent in another language and all the local restaurants were ethnic-oriented. It’s probably not a raucous party scene like you would find at a big state school, but she liked it there.

Its international as its known as the rich kid school....

[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:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

Yes, seriously. I don't even know how to interpret someone not getting into a school other than "the committee found their application less strong than those of the kids they admitted." At selective schools, even a very strong applicant can be less strong than many other kids.

If you really think all the kids that get accepted to top schools are THE STRONGEST of those that applied, you must be delusional.

NP here. Those accepted are not necessarily “the strongest” or “stronger” than those who aren’t accepted. Once a student has certain grades, test scores, etc. they are deemed qualified and viable candidates. The committee is then looking at other things. Maybe one student wrote a particularly compelling essay. Maybe another has a unique extra curricular that impressed the committee. Another one might fill a certain demographic or talent the school is looking for. Point is, a school could fill their class several times over with qualified applicants but they don’t have room for them all. Over 75% of applicants to top schools are “top” candidates. I wouldn’t call one better than another. Someone with a 1590 and 4.0 is not a “better” candidate than someone with a 1550 and 4.0. Academically they are the same assuming equal coursework.
Some just fill the schools’ needs or wants while others are just one of many amazing applicants.

This is exactly right and it is also what I was saying. "The strongest candidates" - ie the ones who are accepted - are the ones who are qualified on the basis of test scores and grades (which are not necessarily higher than the rejected candidates) AND have whatever other things the school is looking for (extracurriculars, demographic, talent, geography, etc).

TJ mom is just mad that her precious DD didn't have those "other" things CMU wanted so she thinks the process is unfair, waaah.

Just stop it. You are not a saint either. If your kid is a high achieving one like the PP's, you will be mad too. No system is perfect and so is the current admissions system.

A high achieving kid will apply to many selective schools, and will get rejected by some and accepted by others. That kid's mom shouldn't be in here crying and raging about one school her kid didn't get into when that kid (if she is truly high achieving) got into another great school.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

Yes, seriously. I don't even know how to interpret someone not getting into a school other than "the committee found their application less strong than those of the kids they admitted." At selective schools, even a very strong applicant can be less strong than many other kids.

If you really think all the kids that get accepted to top schools are THE STRONGEST of those that applied, you must be delusional.

NP here. Those accepted are not necessarily “the strongest” or “stronger” than those who aren’t accepted. Once a student has certain grades, test scores, etc. they are deemed qualified and viable candidates. The committee is then looking at other things. Maybe one student wrote a particularly compelling essay. Maybe another has a unique extra curricular that impressed the committee. Another one might fill a certain demographic or talent the school is looking for. Point is, a school could fill their class several times over with qualified applicants but they don’t have room for them all. Over 75% of applicants to top schools are “top” candidates. I wouldn’t call one better than another. Someone with a 1590 and 4.0 is not a “better” candidate than someone with a 1550 and 4.0. Academically they are the same assuming equal coursework.
Some just fill the schools’ needs or wants while others are just one of many amazing applicants.

This is exactly right and it is also what I was saying. "The strongest candidates" - ie the ones who are accepted - are the ones who are qualified on the basis of test scores and grades (which are not necessarily higher than the rejected candidates) AND have whatever other things the school is looking for (extracurriculars, demographic, talent, geography, etc).

TJ mom is just mad that her precious DD didn't have those "other" things CMU wanted so she thinks the process is unfair, waaah.

Just stop it. You are not a saint either. If your kid is a high achieving one like the PP's, you will be mad too. No system is perfect and so is the current admissions system.

A high achieving kid will apply to many selective schools, and will get rejected by some and accepted by others. That kid's mom shouldn't be in here crying and raging about one school her kid didn't get into when that kid (if she is truly high achieving) got into another great school.

What makes you think that parent was crying and raging when all that parent did was sharing their own example of how a high achieving girl from TJ wasn't accepted to CMU? isn't this forum is for that kind of sharing?

[Anonymous]

Andrew Carnegie was a rich, white robber baron that mistreated workers and broke unions. He stopped short of killing Native Americans like Stanford but he was still a thief and charlatan, the fact he became a "philanthropist" later is a joke, he was pure scum.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

Yes, seriously. I don't even know how to interpret someone not getting into a school other than "the committee found their application less strong than those of the kids they admitted." At selective schools, even a very strong applicant can be less strong than many other kids.

If you really think all the kids that get accepted to top schools are THE STRONGEST of those that applied, you must be delusional.

NP here. Those accepted are not necessarily “the strongest” or “stronger” than those who aren’t accepted. Once a student has certain grades, test scores, etc. they are deemed qualified and viable candidates. The committee is then looking at other things. Maybe one student wrote a particularly compelling essay. Maybe another has a unique extra curricular that impressed the committee. Another one might fill a certain demographic or talent the school is looking for. Point is, a school could fill their class several times over with qualified applicants but they don’t have room for them all. Over 75% of applicants to top schools are “top” candidates. I wouldn’t call one better than another. Someone with a 1590 and 4.0 is not a “better” candidate than someone with a 1550 and 4.0. Academically they are the same assuming equal coursework.
Some just fill the schools’ needs or wants while others are just one of many amazing applicants.

This is exactly right and it is also what I was saying. "The strongest candidates" - ie the ones who are accepted - are the ones who are qualified on the basis of test scores and grades (which are not necessarily higher than the rejected candidates) AND have whatever other things the school is looking for (extracurriculars, demographic, talent, geography, etc).

TJ mom is just mad that her precious DD didn't have those "other" things CMU wanted so she thinks the process is unfair, waaah.

Just stop it. You are not a saint either. If your kid is a high achieving one like the PP's, you will be mad too. No system is perfect and so is the current admissions system.

A high achieving kid will apply to many selective schools, and will get rejected by some and accepted by others. That kid's mom shouldn't be in here crying and raging about one school her kid didn't get into when that kid (if she is truly high achieving) got into another great school.

What makes you think that parent was crying and raging when all that parent did was sharing their own example of how a high achieving girl from TJ wasn't accepted to CMU? isn't this forum is for that kind of sharing?

Oh she was clearly big mad that her DD (who is entitled to admission to CMU because she went to TJ or something) didn't get into CMU, but other "less qualified" kids did (and she knows they're less qualified than her DD because reasons).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

DP. Holy Sh#t! You all knowing (in your mind) shrill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotally, every single grad I know from CMU has talked about how miserable they found it, and how much the social life lacked. And, incidentally, I also know three people who transferred out of CMU and graduated elsewhere.

Anecdotally, my DD loves CMU, surroundings, and Pittsburgh city so much that she says it is the best place for her. We met her roommates and some of her friends and they all are very happy they chose CMU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotally, every single grad I know from CMU has talked about how miserable they found it, and how much the social life lacked. And, incidentally, I also know three people who transferred out of CMU and graduated elsewhere.

Anecdotally, my DD loves CMU, surroundings, and Pittsburgh city so much that she says it is the best place for her. We met her roommates and some of her friends and they all are very happy they chose CMU.

Hence the word "anecdotally" both responses are equally worthless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following - DD is interested in Economics and Statistics

My guy is starting his second year there in econ and he loves it. That said, they really do believe it's "in the work" and he says there is a fair amount of stress. In terms of admissions, he had been urged by his HS to apply to some Ivies and Chicago, so you have a sense of where he might theoretically have been, but he did not get into any of them. That said, CMU econ is not the impossible-to-get-into program that CS is.

One more thing - the campus is very diverse, and by diverse, I mean it runs from east Asian, to south Asian, and back, with some white along the way. My guy hits two or three of those metrics and is fine with that, but some of the middle-class white families I grew up with decades ago would have found CMU's culture to be a bridge too far, back then.

First paragraph right-on, bolded utterly useless and unnecessary.

DP. Thank you for sharing your opinion. It enlightened me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotally, every single grad I know from CMU has talked about how miserable they found it, and how much the social life lacked. And, incidentally, I also know three people who transferred out of CMU and graduated elsewhere.

Anecdotally, my DD loves CMU, surroundings, and Pittsburgh city so much that she says it is the best place for her. We met her roommates and some of her friends and they all are very happy they chose CMU.

Hence the word "anecdotally" both responses are equally worthless.

Fortunately, not as worthless as yours. Thank you for claiming the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anecdotally, every single grad I know from CMU has talked about how miserable they found it, and how much the social life lacked. And, incidentally, I also know three people who transferred out of CMU and graduated elsewhere.

Anecdotally, my DD loves CMU, surroundings, and Pittsburgh city so much that she says it is the best place for her. We met her roommates and some of her friends and they all are very happy they chose CMU.

Hence the word "anecdotally" both responses are equally worthless.

Fortunately, not as worthless as yours. Thank you for claiming the bottom.

Bottom of what? Worthless is worthless, it literally means "having no value or use." If all of our comments are worthless there is no bottom.

[Anonymous]

Go to CMU for CS, otherwise it's not worth the tuition. Go to your flagship state public for any other majors if you have the option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

DP. Holy Sh#t! You all knowing (in your mind) shrill.

🤷‍♂️ You don’t have to know everything to know a kid that didn’t get in was a weaker applicant than a kid that did. All her crying about how great her kid is doesn’t change that. And she won’t say where her kid actually did get admitted, for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

DP. Holy Sh#t! You all knowing (in your mind) shrill.

🤷‍♂️ You don’t have to know everything to know a kid that didn’t get in was a weaker applicant than a kid that did. All her crying about how great her kid is doesn’t change that. And she won’t say where her kid actually did get admitted, for some reason.

MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

DP. Holy Sh#t! You all knowing (in your mind) shrill.

🤷‍♂️ You don’t have to know everything to know a kid that didn’t get in was a weaker applicant than a kid that did. All her crying about how great her kid is doesn’t change that. And she won’t say where her kid actually did get admitted, for some reason.

MIT.

DP. Congratulations. So, your DC is only slightly less qualified for admission to CMU SCS. I am sure your DC will make the best of MIT opportunity and will have a bright career.