Applying to Harvard and Princeton “for fun”

[Anonymous]

I similarly take issue with high stats kids who apply to Pitt with absolutely no intention of going because it's fun to get an acceptance in September ("it makes it official that I'm going to college," said by 4.9 GPA IB kids with higher SAT scores is pretty ridiculous!). My average good kid who loved Pitt for whom Pitt is a solid target will have to compete with those kids next year and it seems really unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I similarly take issue with high stats kids who apply to Pitt with absolutely no intention of going because it's fun to get an acceptance in September ("it makes it official that I'm going to college," said by 4.9 GPA IB kids with higher SAT scores is pretty ridiculous!). My average good kid who loved Pitt for whom Pitt is a solid target will have to compete with those kids next year and it seems really unfair.

They have no obligation to you or your kid. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These posts read like a lot of parents being resentful that kids apply to other schools after getting in and so start claiming they never intended to go. REA and SCEA mean exactly that - you can apply elsewhere - they’re not taking your kid’s spot. Stop being jealous idiots, demanding that if you get in anywhere you stop applying.

You sound like a Stanford parent. Not like a Stanford legacy though…

And you sound like a whiner who expect everyone to do favors for your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private schools kid accepted at REA to Princeton-but not 100% sure really wants to go so applying elsewhere?! Like WHY!

Because it’s their life. And REA means exactly that. You ask people to switch seats on the airplane too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it's greedy. Never would hire someone like that

As if you’d ever know. Moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I similarly take issue with high stats kids who apply to Pitt with absolutely no intention of going because it's fun to get an acceptance in September ("it makes it official that I'm going to college," said by 4.9 GPA IB kids with higher SAT scores is pretty ridiculous!). My average good kid who loved Pitt for whom Pitt is a solid target will have to compete with those kids next year and it seems really unfair.

They have no obligation to you or your kid. Get over yourself.

Did you say that to the many people on this thread who have said it's unfair that the kid who's applying to Harvard and Princeton for fun is taking away other kids' spots?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids had a friend who did this last year - applied to Harvard, Penn, Princeton and MIT after Stanford REA acceptance. He didn’t get in anywhere else.

It seems Stanford attracts a certain “type”

can you explain that "type"? I couldn't pinpoint it when we visited, but there was something about the vibe that I didn't like.

This professor, with experience teaching at Stanford, characterized its students as "very smart" but not, as a generalization, particularly intellectually oriented:

https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/faculty-jason-cieply-russian-studies

There are so many morally questionable people from Stanford...
Elizabeth Holmes
Caroline Ellison & SBF and his parents
Sam Altman
Peter Thiel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids had a friend who did this last year - applied to Harvard, Penn, Princeton and MIT after Stanford REA acceptance. He didn’t get in anywhere else.

It seems Stanford attracts a certain “type”

The Stanford "type" is very much the kind of student that gets in SCEA to their first choice college, and then continues to gather acceptances to elite schools for sh%ts and giggles, knowing very well they are screwing over their classmates. These students lack empathy. That is the typical Stanford student today, whether FGLI or wealthy. The Stanford of today is not the Stanford of 30 years ago. It very much attracts a "type." And that type is sociopath.

A lot of Stanford alum are appalled by the direction the school has taken in recent years. The character of the students very much reflects the character of the administration.

Be successful at other people's cost... typical

[Anonymous]

We also have family friends who are so wealthy that the parents literally do not work, other than doing some freelancing. However, the wealth is all still in the grandparents' names so their son applied to Stanford as low-income and got a full ride. It's really annoying and unethical, they live in a very nice house in the Bay Area (that the grandparents apparently own) and frequently travel. Their son also attended a private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We also have family friends who are so wealthy that the parents literally do not work, other than doing some freelancing. However, the wealth is all still in the grandparents' names so their son applied to Stanford as low-income and got a full ride. It's really annoying and unethical, they live in a very nice house in the Bay Area (that the grandparents apparently own) and frequently travel. Their son also attended a private school.

I thought the zip code is one thing college check for low SES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I similarly take issue with high stats kids who apply to Pitt with absolutely no intention of going because it's fun to get an acceptance in September ("it makes it official that I'm going to college," said by 4.9 GPA IB kids with higher SAT scores is pretty ridiculous!). My average good kid who loved Pitt for whom Pitt is a solid target will have to compete with those kids next year and it seems really unfair.

They have no obligation to you or your kid. Get over yourself.

Did you say that to the many people on this thread who have said it's unfair that the kid who's applying to Harvard and Princeton for fun is taking away other kids' spots?

Yes. One- you don’t know if they’re being accurate about the other kid applying for fun. They’re just trying to shame the kid. Two, if their kid was going to get rejected it was going to happen regardless- this is just scapegoating. Three - it’s a free country - if they have a .05% inclination that they might be interested they have every right to apply. Why should they make a decision to accommodate some other kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I similarly take issue with high stats kids who apply to Pitt with absolutely no intention of going because it's fun to get an acceptance in September ("it makes it official that I'm going to college," said by 4.9 GPA IB kids with higher SAT scores is pretty ridiculous!). My average good kid who loved Pitt for whom Pitt is a solid target will have to compete with those kids next year and it seems really unfair.

They have no obligation to you or your kid. Get over yourself.

Did you say that to the many people on this thread who have said it's unfair that the kid who's applying to Harvard and Princeton for fun is taking away other kids' spots?

Yes. One- you don’t know if they’re being accurate about the other kid applying for fun. They’re just trying to shame the kid. Two, if their kid was going to get rejected it was going to happen regardless- this is just scapegoating. Three - it’s a free country - if they have a .05% inclination that they might be interested they have every right to apply. Why should they make a decision to accommodate some other kid?

Of course, right? Let everyone be as selfish as possible—forget collaboration. Who cares, anyway? Imagine becoming a billionaire and telling people they won’t need to work anymore… because you’ve made them unnecessary.
Geez, don’t we have enough selfish people already?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I similarly take issue with high stats kids who apply to Pitt with absolutely no intention of going because it's fun to get an acceptance in September ("it makes it official that I'm going to college," said by 4.9 GPA IB kids with higher SAT scores is pretty ridiculous!). My average good kid who loved Pitt for whom Pitt is a solid target will have to compete with those kids next year and it seems really unfair.

They have no obligation to you or your kid. Get over yourself.

Did you say that to the many people on this thread who have said it's unfair that the kid who's applying to Harvard and Princeton for fun is taking away other kids' spots?

Yes. One- you don’t know if they’re being accurate about the other kid applying for fun. They’re just trying to shame the kid. Two, if their kid was going to get rejected it was going to happen regardless- this is just scapegoating. Three - it’s a free country - if they have a .05% inclination that they might be interested they have every right to apply. Why should they make a decision to accommodate some other kid?

Of course, right? Let everyone be as selfish as possible—forget collaboration. Who cares, anyway? Imagine becoming a billionaire and telling people they won’t need to work anymore… because you’ve made them unnecessary.
Geez, don’t we have enough selfish people already?

You are ridiculous. College admissions is not a collaborative endeavor. Shaming a kid who wants to apply where you kid is applying is what this is all about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I similarly take issue with high stats kids who apply to Pitt with absolutely no intention of going because it's fun to get an acceptance in September ("it makes it official that I'm going to college," said by 4.9 GPA IB kids with higher SAT scores is pretty ridiculous!). My average good kid who loved Pitt for whom Pitt is a solid target will have to compete with those kids next year and it seems really unfair.

They have no obligation to you or your kid. Get over yourself.

Did you say that to the many people on this thread who have said it's unfair that the kid who's applying to Harvard and Princeton for fun is taking away other kids' spots?

Yes. One- you don’t know if they’re being accurate about the other kid applying for fun. They’re just trying to shame the kid. Two, if their kid was going to get rejected it was going to happen regardless- this is just scapegoating. Three - it’s a free country - if they have a .05% inclination that they might be interested they have every right to apply. Why should they make a decision to accommodate some other kid?

Of course, right? Let everyone be as selfish as possible—forget collaboration. Who cares, anyway? Imagine becoming a billionaire and telling people they won’t need to work anymore… because you’ve made them unnecessary.
Geez, don’t we have enough selfish people already?

You are ridiculous. College admissions is not a collaborative endeavor. Shaming a kid who wants to apply where you kid is applying is what this is all about.

Who really lacks a moral compass? Usually it’s not the child—it’s the parents and the zero-sum culture such a family carry around them. Just imagine the kind of person this child will grow up to become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC’s friend was accepted REA to Stanford, but is planning to apply to Harvard and Princeton just “for fun”. Seems like the same set of kids end up getting all the acceptances to the T5.

DC’s friend is a jerk…

Why?