So Ivies and top colleges are ALWAYS REACH?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always try to get your kid into Cambridge or Oxford if you think that system is better. The rest of the world is trying to get access to the American educational institutions because our univerisities are considered the gold standard. Most top schools in the world are American and have holistic admissions. It’s so odd that foreigners come to America for education or job opportunities and then are furious that our educational system does not follow the rigid testing structure that forced them to leave in the first place. They come for the opportunity in America but want to change it to a rigid testing culture.

Well I am the poster who made the point about the ceiling effect of our national tests and I am an American so I am not sure what made you assume I was a foreigner


In any case I will admit that I am a professor at a top 20 university and value academic accomplishment in my students. And also I have written test questions for national tests and understand the psychometric criteria used in constructing national test instruments.

Having a clearer signal on Academic performance through harder national tests doesnt prevent or obviate the holistic admissions approach or the ability to bias admissions in favor of underrepresented groups. It just allows a much better fine-tuned process that is able to signal to potential applicants why they were or were not admitted. Having noise in the criteria just makes the process more random. Even a rational holistic admissions process.

That's precisely what colleges want, more "noise". "Holistic" just allows them to be less transparent and they do not want to be transparent. They want to By use factors of their choosing to pick the student body they want. "well she was a disabled bagpipe player from county ___ and we really were impressed by her overcoming of adversity and needed one of those so ... They will have plenty of the high test scorers also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not oppose holistic admissions but numerous other posters on this chain place a heavy emphasis on testing. There are no top 20 schools in the DMV area so ...’you are probably a troll

I mean Gtown? Most people don't follow US news year to year changes like the anal on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not oppose holistic admissions but numerous other posters on this chain place a heavy emphasis on testing. There are no top 20 schools in the DMV area so ...’you are probably a troll

Hopkins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always try to get your kid into Cambridge or Oxford if you think that system is better. The rest of the world is trying to get access to the American educational institutions because our univerisities are considered the gold standard. Most top schools in the world are American and have holistic admissions. It’s so odd that foreigners come to America for education or job opportunities and then are furious that our educational system does not follow the rigid testing structure that forced them to leave in the first place. They come for the opportunity in America but want to change it to a rigid testing culture.

Well I am the poster who made the point about the ceiling effect of our national tests and I am an American so I am not sure what made you assume I was a foreigner


In any case I will admit that I am a professor at a top 20 university and value academic accomplishment in my students. And also I have written test questions for national tests and understand the psychometric criteria used in constructing national test instruments.

Curious. Do you oppose holistic admissions? I’m curious about an academic’s opinion.

I do not oppose holistic admissions but it should not factor in skin color. SES and student-specific struggles or life history as they relate to academic potential - fine to a certain extent given social diversity goals. But holistic admissions using personal character that is about motivation and leadership and social or academic impact yes. Holistic admission by reserving spots for legacies and sports NO. If people want to play sports fine but dont displace other excellent students who could uss that slot to learn. Sports and non-sports kids should be judged using the same academic (and leadership) bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting pissed now. High achieving Asian-American male student in magnet STEM program. 4.0 GPA, NMF, 10 APs, 1 state level EC, hundreds of hours of community service, member of a number of honor societies, started two clubs, research experience....and Ivies are just reach for him? FU%K IT!!!!!!!

If this is a real post--you have other kids like your son to thank for your frustration.

Actually he probably has less qualified white kids to thank for his son’s situation.

I wasn't referring to race. I was referring to the competition. OP's son doesn't seem special because of the pressure high-achieving kids put themselves under and insane workaholism.

No actually the real reason we are in this situation is that the national level tests - like the SAT SAT subject tests and the APs are too easy at the top levels of scoring - they dont have enough challenging sections to differentiate peformance at the top levels of academic prowess. So all smart kids look like they have 5s on their APs when really there should be a level 6 and 7 of performance so that the test really does select the truly super-"smart" kids from the merely smart. That is what the British A-levels A* versus A score gives you and what the IB 7 / 7scores give compared to 5or6/7. Only 3% of kids in IB score 7s and 5% of A-level kids get A*s. But for APs about 15% get 5s so these tests dont allow enough selection of the true top-level kids.

Well put! I completely agree. The College Board is a bunch of morons. Who would take an instrument and deliberately make it less precise?! Getting rid of the vocab section and analogies was a ridiculous move. I wonder if colleges are asking for better tests.

Colleges are moving toward ditching admissions tests altogether, not seeking a different better one.

As for the College Board, it changed the SAT in response to demand from states to have one test that would test mastery of high school Common Core learning objectives. The ACT met that mark and many states adopted it for that purpose because they could administer the ACT, check the box for annual testing and ‘give’ students a free college admission test without spending more.

SAT was losing market share and changed to be more ACT-like. Colleges did not object.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am getting pissed now. High achieving Asian-American male student in magnet STEM program. 4.0 GPA, NMF, 10 APs, 1 state level EC, hundreds of hours of community service, member of a number of honor societies, started two clubs, research experience....and Ivies are just reach for him? FU%K IT!!!!!!!

Dear Author - what these statistics QUALIFY your son for is the being on top of the Honors program in your flagship state universities. With NMSF, there are also a number of mid-level private and public schools which will either give you son a full ride or at least match your state's flagship tuition.

I think your son is a very strong candidate for Cornell and Carnegie Mellon.

As for top Ivies, he can apply, but within his category coming from a STEM magnet his chances would be higher if his research experience led to a publication or placing in a national science competition.

[Anonymous]

Another HYPS alumni interviewer in the DMV area here. . .sorry to tell you, but there are lots of kids like yours applying every year around here. I would think it's the same for white kids with similar profiles.

[Anonymous]

"I am getting pissed now. High achieving Asian-American male student in magnet STEM program. 4.0 GPA, NMF, 10 APs, 1 state level EC, hundreds of hours of community service, member of a number of honor societies, started two clubs, research experience....and Ivies are just reach for him? FU%K IT!!!!!!"

Amazing stats, but kind of boring... the colleges you want are going to see so many boring applicants like you. Are all of your ecs that you listed rlly relevant?.... colleges might get the idea of resume building from that, make sure theyre relevant

Set yourself apart, be edgy if you need to, and ensure that your personality comes off as nice and interesting in essays. what makes u unique? Is your research experience published? Find r make a rlly unique leadership role for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am getting pissed now. High achieving Asian-American male student in magnet STEM program. 4.0 GPA, NMF, 10 APs, 1 state level EC, hundreds of hours of community service, member of a number of honor societies, started two clubs, research experience....and Ivies are just reach for him? FU%K IT!!!!!!!

While, as many have noted, these statistics are not unique, I think its a little unfair to say that they are common, or that kids like this are "a dime a dozen." As others have noted, the overall population has grown tremendously over the past 20 years, while the number of spots at "elite" colleges and universities has not, so completition for these spots has intensified. I have a junior with 4.2 GPA (and heading higher), 35 ACT score and an NMSF tag on its way (but pretty limited extra-curriculars), but recognize that getting into any school with a low admit rate (say, under 20%), is a bit of long shot. Looking hard at William and Mary, Williams, Carleton, and Swarthmore, but realize that he needs to add some "safeties" to his list.

[Anonymous]

That's smart to look at SLACs. It is much easier to get into a top SLAC as a male applicant than female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting pissed now. High achieving Asian-American male student in magnet STEM program. 4.0 GPA, NMF, 10 APs, 1 state level EC, hundreds of hours of community service, member of a number of honor societies, started two clubs, research experience....and Ivies are just reach for him? FU%K IT!!!!!!!

While, as many have noted, these statistics are not unique, I think its a little unfair to say that they are common, or that kids like this are "a dime a dozen." As others have noted, the overall population has grown tremendously over the past 20 years, while the number of spots at "elite" colleges and universities has not, so completition for these spots has intensified. I have a junior with 4.2 GPA (and heading higher), 35 ACT score and an NMSF tag on its way (but pretty limited extra-curriculars), but recognize that getting into any school with a low admit rate (say, under 20%), is a bit of long shot. Looking hard at William and Mary, Williams, Carleton, and Swarthmore, but realize that he needs to add some "safeties" to his list.

those may seem to be "matches" on paper, but we're talking sub 13% admissions rate now for these. DC with very similar stats did not get into those three. I was pretty shocked since DC was very confident the interviews went well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I do not oppose holistic admissions but it should not factor in skin color. SES and student-specific struggles or life history as they relate to academic potential - fine to a certain extent given social diversity goals. But holistic admissions using personal character that is about motivation and leadership and social or academic impact yes. Holistic admission by reserving spots for legacies and sports NO. If people want to play sports fine but dont displace other excellent students who could uss that slot to learn. Sports and non-sports kids should be judged using the same academic (and leadership) bar.

Why do you assume the kids who play sports are displacing other excellent students? Most of the student-athletes I know, particularly who attend very competitive colleges (ie NESCA/IVY/Nwestern/Stanford) are also tippy top students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I do not oppose holistic admissions but it should not factor in skin color. SES and student-specific struggles or life history as they relate to academic potential - fine to a certain extent given social diversity goals. But holistic admissions using personal character that is about motivation and leadership and social or academic impact yes. Holistic admission by reserving spots for legacies and sports NO. If people want to play sports fine but dont displace other excellent students who could uss that slot to learn. Sports and non-sports kids should be judged using the same academic (and leadership) bar.

Why do you assume the kids who play sports are displacing other excellent students? Most of the student-athletes I know, particularly who attend very competitive colleges (ie NESCA/IVY/Nwestern/Stanford) are also tippy top students.

Oh, well that clinches it.

[Anonymous]

Gosh it is sad but simple math

37,000 or so High Schools in the US

14,700 Ivy enrollments annually

Even if they took all the #1 kids there are still far more left out than admitted.

It's just a 5 lb. bag, you can't get 20 lb. in it.

[Anonymous]

"Gosh it is sad but simple math

37,000 or so High Schools in the US

14,700 Ivy enrollments annually

Even if they took all the #1 kids there are still far more left out than admitted.

It's just a 5 lb. bag, you can't get 20 lb. in it."

+1

And it's always been a 5 lb. bag and it was always a reach with those stats once you account for test difficulty and grade distribution changes over the last 70 years.