Success with Ivy-level admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

You are the exact parent that will be back here in May complaining that your kid was “shut out.” It will turn out that their list contained only t15 schools because you did not listen to anyone. This happens every single year.

Nah
All my kids are in HYPSM. And I personally am familiar with the profiles of a lot of students accepted to Ivy+. I can confidently tell you that you guys have no idea about the top college admissions and blame it as crapshoot. It’s not.

So, be more precise please and tell us the big secret.

My kids are not at HYPSM, but I agree. My kids had high academic stats and good/not great EC got into the the next level lower schools. However, the students from my kid's public school that get into those schools have that something special (that just be republicated), in addition to the high stats. One of them is an amazing musician and scientist and also a high level varsity athlete, going to Princeton. The one who got into MIT, is so savvy with Tech that they bill themselves out to for techservices to legit companies and sold a patent for an app. The girl who got into Harvard has been a passionate environmental activist since she was in elementary school, in addition to all of the other extra curricular activities.

Yes it's called Legacy, URM, or recruited athlete. Better if you have all 3. That is your special something.

Why are recruited athletes lumped with legacy and URM? One you have to work your ass off at the others you are born with

Because they are all hooks unrelated to academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL so you are admitting that Asian students have to compete with other Asian students just like CS applicants compete with other CS applicants.

At schools where there are a disproportionate amount of qualified Asian applicants, of course. Does anyone dispute that? At schools where there are an under-represented amount of qualified Asian applicants, they get the benefit of the same policies and objectives.

Anonymous wrote:Do you even know what you're talking about?

Yes.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure it's good intention(diversity), but when colleges use racial quota, there are more qualified students penalized.  

You don't get to decide who is more qualified, or what those qualifications are, unless you set the objectives for a university.

Anonymous wrote:Schools make judgments based on color, that's more racist.

No, if a school rejected people solely on race, that would be racist. Or if it had a disproportionate mix of one race, it would be racist. Since it is closely proportional to the population, it is not racist. If you can't see that difference I cannot make you.

Anonymous wrote:There are schools that don't do that like CalTech.

CalTech gets to decide how CalTech does admissions, as long as they don't violate the law. I strongly support their right to do that, because I am not a hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:There are good intentions, but there are also unfairness. But then again there's no such thing as a perfect system.

Well we agree that a perfect system at any one college is impossible. But overall it works as best as it can until someone comes up with a better way.

Anonymous wrote:No need to deny the fact. I'm not here for political correctness. You are insulting your own intelligence.  Save your preaching for your kids.

It has nothing to do with political correctness, as has been explained. Also please avoid Ad Hominems, they are not productive and detract from your position. As for "preaching", if you're gonna type racist stuff, you're gonna hear about it. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The very top kids at my child's high school (valedictorian, salutatorian and a couple others) got into Ivy-level colleges. The kids (like my DD), who would have had a good shot at some of these schools even 5 years ago, didn't have a chance, and every one is going to a second-tier college or in-state school because of cost.

The top-ranked schools attract a lot of hyper-qualified applicants, so they can pick whomever they want from their applicant pool. These days you need a hook, a 4.0 and at least 1550 on your SAT to even be considered at the top schools.

Kids who aren't interested in working that hard in high school should be realistic about college admissions, even if they are extremely bright. Sure, they'd do fine at Harvard and Yale, but without stats, they don't have the admissions ticket, unless they are a top athlete or have some other unique skill or talent.

I know two superb athletes who went to Princeton and Harvard who are not at the top of their classes academically. But their athletic skill got them admitted.

Clown

Don’t be an a*hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

Exactly! When the whole system is watered down so much . Getting a B says a lot about that student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

How do you get an A with less than a 90? Can you explain? My kids went to private and grades were like they were when I was young (regular grades, 4.0 scale, no weighting, etc), so I’m confused

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

Exactly! When the whole system is watered down so much . Getting a B says a lot about that student.

My kid purposely plays the system and will do the minimum to earn an A. He thinks the kids in his class who do everything in their power to get in high a or foolish because they’re getting to same grades as the other students that are earning 89.5 and above. My kid consistently does well on standardized tests (eg MAP scores in the 99 percentile) and 1560 on SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

Exactly! When the whole system is watered down so much . Getting a B says a lot about that student.

My kid purposely plays the system and will do the minimum to earn an A. He thinks the kids in his class who do everything in their power to get in high a or foolish because they’re getting to same grades as the other students that are earning 89.5 and above. My kid consistently does well on standardized tests (eg MAP scores in the 99 percentile) and 1560 on SAT.

Sorry autocorrect… should say earn a high A are foolish

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

Exactly! When the whole system is watered down so much . Getting a B says a lot about that student.

My kid purposely plays the system and will do the minimum to earn an A. He thinks the kids in his class who do everything in their power to get in high a or foolish because they’re getting to same grades as the other students that are earning 89.5 and above. My kid consistently does well on standardized tests (eg MAP scores in the 99 percentile) and 1560 on SAT.

Taking advantage of the full educational offerings in any particular class is not foolish. The point is not to get an A. The point is to get the best education you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

Exactly! When the whole system is watered down so much . Getting a B says a lot about that student.

My kid purposely plays the system and will do the minimum to earn an A. He thinks the kids in his class who do everything in their power to get in high a or foolish because they’re getting to same grades as the other students that are earning 89.5 and above. My kid consistently does well on standardized tests (eg MAP scores in the 99 percentile) and 1560 on SAT.

Taking advantage of the full educational offerings in any particular class is not foolish. The point is not to get an A. The point is to get the best education you can.

In general, I agree but I can’t convince my kid and I refuse to waste time and energy trying to change his mind. He understands the material and learns quickly. Never the type to enjoy school just for the sake of learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

Exactly! When the whole system is watered down so much . Getting a B says a lot about that student.

My kid purposely plays the system and will do the minimum to earn an A. He thinks the kids in his class who do everything in their power to get in high a or foolish because they’re getting to same grades as the other students that are earning 89.5 and above. My kid consistently does well on standardized tests (eg MAP scores in the 99 percentile) and 1560 on SAT.

Taking advantage of the full educational offerings in any particular class is not foolish. The point is not to get an A. The point is to get the best education you can.

In general, I agree but I can’t convince my kid and I refuse to waste time and energy trying to change his mind. He understands the material and learns quickly. Never the type to enjoy school just for the sake of learning.

They are who they are. I have a supernerd and another that sounds more like the above student. It's all good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

So a student with an 89.5 average and one with an 89.4 average are “entirely different performance” levels? Because in mcps the first is an A student and the second is a B student. My kids (in mcps) have plenty of teachers who don’t even return graded work until near the end of the quarter, at which time it is hard to elevate a grade by even .5 of a point. And by the way my kids are A students in all AP and honors classes. But I know there are students who are extremely similar performance levels with some Bs. I do also acknowledge there is a big performance difference between a student with an 80 average and one with a 90 average. But plenty of kids with Bs are 89s.

[Anonymous]

Do they go the extra mile? Do they love to learn? Are they scholarly with a natural gift for academic pursuits? Are they engaged deeply and for a sustained period ( years) with ECs of interest? Are they distinguished participants in those ECs? Are they a real standout in a particular discipline?

Unless they have some hook, that is the type of candidate they are up against to gain admittance at top universities. Top grades and scores are not enough....all the applicants admitted have that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a crapshoot. Not much difference from last year at our school.

For mediocre applicants, it’s indeed a crapshoot. But not for top achievers.

Yes it is for high achievers, the ones who would easily have gotten a place at a T20 university a few years back. The very top achievers (#1 in their class with extremely rigorous courseload) and top recruited athletes will get a spot at a T20. But the average high achievers with excellent grades and test scores, but no real hook are now having to settle at least one or two rungs down from schools they would have gained admittance too fairly recently. A kid at DD's high school who had a 3.89 uw and 1580 SAT got rejected from his mom's Ivy. My DD was astonished by this, and so was this kid and his parents. But these things are common these days. The kid is going to USC.

Frankly, a kid with a 3.89 had a few Bs and probably should not have gotten in to an Ivy just because his mother attended. I'm sure there were plenty of more qualified kids at his school. plus USC is a great school. this is actually the system working exactly as it should, IMO.

You realize “a few Bs” could mean 1-2 points or ONE quiz difference between the kid with the B and the kid with the A. And the kid with the B may have taken harder classes. This is wholly off point to the thread but these kinds of statements drive me crazy and feed into much artificial stress teens today are under. This kid is just as smart and as hard a worker as the person sitting next to him with the 4.0. Just like it is silly to parse between a 1530 and 1580, and “one sitting” v two for the test, these kids will all do as well as each other at any college.

Not when an A is can be achieved by having a 89.5 one semester out of every 2 semesters like it is in most public districts. Actually getting a B signifies another different of performance entirely than a Kid with straight As.

I have two kids: one has straight As, one had straight As with a few Bs (total). fundamentally two different students from an academic standpoint.

So a student with an 89.5 average and one with an 89.4 average are “entirely different performance” levels? Because in mcps the first is an A student and the second is a B student. My kids (in mcps) have plenty of teachers who don’t even return graded work until near the end of the quarter, at which time it is hard to elevate a grade by even .5 of a point. And by the way my kids are A students in all AP and honors classes. But I know there are students who are extremely similar performance levels with some Bs. I do also acknowledge there is a big performance difference between a student with an 80 average and one with a 90 average. But plenty of kids with Bs are 89s.

So what. It simply means they couldn’t even crack 90 in a watered down system. So they deserve a B, period.