Got a Smart Kid Applying for College Anytime Soon? Read this NYT Article (if you haven't yet)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This trend makes those families who focused on athleticism as a way to stand out, look increasingly savvy.

Not really. I'm the parent of 2 college varsity athletes (at an Ivy) and unless your kid is good enough to be recruited and wants to continue playing in college, HS athletics won't really make you stand out. And, even then, your child has to be a really strong candidate w/re to grades, scores, recommendations and essays. Many, many families whom we met as our kids played sports together over the years vastly overestimated how much of a boost their kids would get from sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This trend makes those families who focused on athleticism as a way to stand out, look increasingly savvy.

Not really. I'm the parent of 2 college varsity athletes (at an Ivy) and unless your kid is good enough to be recruited and wants to continue playing in college, HS athletics won't really make you stand out. And, even then, your child has to be a really strong candidate w/re to grades, scores, recommendations and essays. Many, many families whom we met as our kids played sports together over the years vastly overestimated how much of a boost their kids would get from sports.

I was referring to families like yours, in which the children are truly good athletes. I often wondered if that was time well spent, and now I see that is obviously is.

[Anonymous]

The common app makes it easier for students to apply to many reach colleges. Colleges love that b/c it raises their stats. For every qualified student applying to an Ivy, there are 10 who are just going through the motions --even if it is a lot of work and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you would both get in because you are alumni and you have mastered the science of time travel.

Yes, I am very smart that way. DS at Princeton. Not a problem.

Wow, your whole family must be very impressive...or should I say impressed with yourselves? Stop bragging. There are plenty of other people with impressive credentials out there, and some of them are even making positive change in the world.

Just stating the facts, dear. We do not need to make a positive change in the world just because you did not get in. Nice try, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mean to say that the odds for legacy admits are better than for the general pool -- but certainly not relatively easy.

The hard thing about going up against legacy is also that many legacy kids are very smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mean to say that the odds for legacy admits are better than for the general pool -- but certainly not relatively easy.

The hard thing about going up against legacy is also that many legacy kids are very smart.

Yes, this is something that graduates of fancy colleges like to believe.

But the fact is that legacy admission is affirmative action for the children of graduates of fancy colleges.

[Anonymous]

Here is the truth, the world is increasingly competitive. Whether we are discussing technology, innovation, military, art, medicine, education, housing, opportunities, schools, or work -- we are part of an ever-increasing population sharing somewhat limited resources.

[Anonymous]

Please, stop the hyperventilating! The pool of likely admits to the most selective colleges isn't much bigger than it used to be. There are just lots more applicants who would never have been likely to get in submitting their Common Apps.

Here's a good read to provide a little reassurance - http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/is-college-really-harder-to-get-into-than-it-used-to-be/360114/

The top 1-2% of high school graduates today really isn't that much different than the top 1-2% in the '80s. If your child is one of the top kids in his/her school and he/she took the most rigorous classes available and scored respectably (relative to their level of privilege), your child will get into one of the elite colleges. A strong student's odds of getting into one of the elite colleges is as good now as it was 30-40 years ago. The reason the admit rates have fallen so sharply is that lots more kids in the top 20% take a shot when similar would have been heavily discouraged a generation ago.

What's changed is that the odds of getting into any particular elite college is much harder. DC may have her heart set on Brown and not get in, but there is a pretty strong chance she will get into Dartmouth, Cornell, or Penn and an even better chance to get into one of the really good SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Athletics helps very much. Our local team always places several very good athletes (and I am not talking about Olympic level, or even "deeply" national level), with good grades and test scores (As and Bs, 2100-2300 SATs), at excellent schools. If not for the athletic angle, I suspect that it would have been quite difficult for admissions even with those good grades and test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please, stop the hyperventilating! The pool of likely admits to the most selective colleges isn't much bigger than it used to be. There are just lots more applicants who would never have been likely to get in submitting their Common Apps.

Here's a good read to provide a little reassurance - http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/is-college-really-harder-to-get-into-than-it-used-to-be/360114/

The top 1-2% of high school graduates today really isn't that much different than the top 1-2% in the '80s. If your child is one of the top kids in his/her school and he/she took the most rigorous classes available and scored respectably (relative to their level of privilege), your child will get into one of the elite colleges. A strong student's odds of getting into one of the elite colleges is as good now as it was 30-40 years ago. The reason the admit rates have fallen so sharply is that lots more kids in the top 20% take a shot when similar would have been heavily discouraged a generation ago.

What's changed is that the odds of getting into any particular elite college is much harder. DC may have her heart set on Brown and not get in, but there is a pretty strong chance she will get into Dartmouth, Cornell, or Penn and an even better chance to get into one of the really good SLACs.

I agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed: Ivies do accept people who have not got a change in !@$$ of going there. That has happened to several friends kids. Make HHI over $100K -- that is two school teachers in the DC area. So you get accepted, but not being eligible for aid, you decline. Who is going to take out a loan for $230K to go to an Ivy? The rich of course.

That doesn't make any sense at all. First, the Ivies have the highest yield rates, a key measure of desirability. So they wouldn't push their yields down by admitting kids they know won't attend. Second, the Ivies are the richest institutions out there. So they have more money to spend on financial aid than public universities. anyone worried about affordability of the Ivies should check out the net price calculators on their websites. In general families earning less than $150,000 will find that the Ivies have remarkably low costs after financial aid is included. If you make $100,000 your kid will likely get a grant that would cover all of tuition ($45k+) and it would be cheaper to go there than many state schools. Because of their wealth, all of the Ivies commit to providing enough aid to match the expected family contribution, so they never underfund the aid package like commonly done at most other schools.

My point is just that top-notch middle class kids should never let the sticker price scare them away from applying to the Ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my husband and I are very successful (Ivy degrees, etc.). He made partner in Big Law. Our kids are confident and gifted. They are not afraid of competition and they will be winners.

With an attitude like that I feel sorry for your kids. "Winners"? Really?

1st pp is a troll, from a non-English speaking country. 2nd pp is just gullible

How do you know they come from a non-English speaking country?

You can tell by the sentence structure, choice of words, and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you would both get in because you are alumni and you have mastered the science of time travel.

Yes, I am very smart that way. DS at Princeton. Not a problem.

Wow, your whole family must be very impressive...or should I say impressed with yourselves? Stop bragging. There are plenty of other people with impressive credentials out there, and some of them are even making positive change in the world.

Just stating the facts, dear. We do not need to make a positive change in the world just because you did not get in. Nice try, though.

I am sorry. What point is it that you are trying to make? Your last statement suggests that you know something about the other poster, which can't be true because he/she makes no assertions. Academically unique for DC and clairvoyant!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you would both get in because you are alumni and you have mastered the science of time travel.

Yes, I am very smart that way. DS at Princeton. Not a problem.

Wow, your whole family must be very impressive...or should I say impressed with yourselves? Stop bragging. There are plenty of other people with impressive credentials out there, and some of them are even making positive change in the world.

Just stating the facts, dear. We do not need to make a positive change in the world just because you did not get in. Nice try, though.

I am sorry. What point is it that you are trying to make? Your last statement suggests that you know something about the other poster, which can't be true because he/she makes no assertions. Academically unique for DC and clairvoyant!

Wait, I'm thinking...thinking...thinking. Must come up with a clever response that allows me to crow some more about my superiority. Damn, I give up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This trend makes those families who focused on athleticism as a way to stand out, look increasingly savvy.

Not really. I'm the parent of 2 college varsity athletes (at an Ivy) and unless your kid is good enough to be recruited and wants to continue playing in college, HS athletics won't really make you stand out. And, even then, your child has to be a really strong candidate w/re to grades, scores, recommendations and essays. Many, many families whom we met as our kids played sports together over the years vastly overestimated how much of a boost their kids would get from sports.

I was referring to families like yours, in which the children are truly good athletes. I often wondered if that was time well spent, and now I see that is obviously is.

We didn't focus on athleticism as "a way to stand out" -- i.e., a strategy for college admissions. Our kids love playing their sport and have gotten a lot out of it -- tenacity, resilience, patience, focus, opportunities to lead and just plain fun. We followed their enthusiasm; if we'd tried to package them, it wouldn't have worked.