Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Northwestern, other Ivies What Does It Take ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We all know that superb stats are not enough for one to get an offer of admission to Stanford, Harvard, and/or Princeton. At what point are superb stats enough to get one an offer of admission to an elite private National University ?

In another thread, a poster listed Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton as their daughter's top 3 school choices. The poster stated that her daughter had the stats for these schools. Most of us understand that stellar stats (GPA, class rank, and standardized test scores) are not enough to generate an offer of admission to the most elite private National Universities.

Is there a point at which stellar stats are enough for admission to an elite private National University ? If so, where--in terms of US News rank--is that point ?

For a student interested in studying liberal arts whose top choice schools are Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Northwestern or any Ivy, wouldn't applying ED to a Top 10 SLAC be a wiser path due to the relatively high ED admission rates ? (#1 ranked Williams College and #2 ranked Amherst College have reported ED admission rates above 30% within the past few years.)

It's all crapshoot. I know someone that applied to 15 schools and got rejected by all of them except Princeton (and he wasn't legacy or rich). That was a decade ago and admissions have only gotten even more random.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is there a point at which stellar stats are enough for admission to an elite private National University ? If so, where--in terms of US News rank--is that point ?

Looking at this year's US News list of private National Universities, just beyond the top 25 is a decent bet (so starting at Wake Forest at 29).

For National Liberal Arts Colleges, starting at 15 would be a good guess. Many of them are test optional and/or care less about pure stats, so they can be even harder to predict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is there a point at which stellar stats are enough for admission to an elite private National University ? If so, where--in terms of US News rank--is that point ?

Looking at this year's US News list of private National Universities, just beyond the top 25 is a decent bet (so starting at Wake Forest at 29).

For National Liberal Arts Colleges, starting at 15 would be a good guess. Many of them are test optional and/or care less about pure stats, so they can be even harder to predict.

Look out for yield protection rejections/waitlists in this range of schools though.

[Anonymous]

really tried to sneak northwestern in there like nobody would notice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Stanford has the most successful athletic department in the country (#1 in all-time NCAA titles and they've won at least 1 team title every year in recent memory). Essentially all of their athletes are top 1% or better. They pump out olympians and professional athletes in Palo Alto!

Not in the revenue sports. Water polo, synvchronized swimming, men's volleyball, women's rowing, then yes.

Why the hyperfocus on “revenue sports”? Not everyone likes the meathead sports.

[Anonymous]

Sensing snobbery here with emphasis on "Top Privates",
Some of our finest universities are top publics.
I've got one at one of OP's stated schools - but my next one has a fine public as first choice - and she has better stats etc than her sibling (and than OP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

Yeah they are all low level athletes at ivies unless you consider rowing a sporr

Becoming a "low level" Ivy athlete or maybe just an even lower level D3 athlete (MIT, Hopkins, Chicago, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc.) can't be too hard for most multitalented kids, right? With the hook it provides, maybe this is what our kids should focus on for the next year!

Is this sarcasm or delusion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

They generally are very high level in the sports that aren't football and basketball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sensing snobbery here with emphasis on "Top Privates",
Some of our finest universities are top publics.
I've got one at one of OP's stated schools - but my next one has a fine public as first choice - and she has better stats etc than her sibling (and than OP)

PP here - caffeine not yet kicking in - OP didn't post stats I think - mea culpa. But the rest I still feel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sensing snobbery here with emphasis on "Top Privates",
Some of our finest universities are top publics.
I've got one at one of OP's stated schools - but my next one has a fine public as first choice - and she has better stats etc than her sibling (and than OP)

What are the differentiators for Berkeley or Michigan?

[Anonymous]

Not sure why Duke and NW are in OPs conversation. But way to get these two in there with the ivy pluses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

The schools really should think about cutting some of those sports that don't have regular attendance or create any sense of community. They are also expensive to operate. Stanford tried to cut multiple sports and the alums went crazy and are now privately funding a number of them.

Ivy League football attendance isn't great but it is still far better than any other regular campus activity I can think of. Yale and Harvard both averaged over 10,000 in 2021 and Princeton, Columbia, and Dartmouth all averaged over 5,000 https://herosports.com/2021-fcs-attendance-leaders-bzbz/

Could you clarify whether averaging 5,000 is good? For five home games that only take place in the fall? Considering the number recruited athletes for football and the resources the university has to put into it, it seems that a random a cappella concert that draws 750 people is a better use of space and resources.

Even the Yale number is skewed by the fact that the Harvard Yale game was at Yale that year. Remove that game and the attendance for the other games was probably below 5,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why Duke and NW are in OPs conversation. But way to get these two in there with the ivy pluses.

Dayim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

The schools really should think about cutting some of those sports that don't have regular attendance or create any sense of community. They are also expensive to operate. Stanford tried to cut multiple sports and the alums went crazy and are now privately funding a number of them.

Ivy League football attendance isn't great but it is still far better than any other regular campus activity I can think of. Yale and Harvard both averaged over 10,000 in 2021 and Princeton, Columbia, and Dartmouth all averaged over 5,000 https://herosports.com/2021-fcs-attendance-leaders-bzbz/

Could you clarify whether averaging 5,000 is good? For five home games that only take place in the fall? Considering the number recruited athletes for football and the resources the university has to put into it, it seems that a random a cappella concert that draws 750 people is a better use of space and resources.

Even the Yale number is skewed by the fact that the Harvard Yale game was at Yale that year. Remove that game and the attendance for the other games was probably below 5,000.

These football teams are hot trash

[Anonymous]

Don’t destroy your kids’ childhood by prepping them for an Ivy League or so-called “elite” university. At the end of the day, it’s not worth it — to you or to them. Smart kids have a wide variety of excellent educational opportunities across the country (and globe) that will set them up for a solid career and fulfilling life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why Duke and NW are in OPs conversation. But way to get these two in there with the ivy pluses.

Dayim

Duke an NW aren't Ivies. They also don't belong with Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UChicago.