How does one get into the Ivy's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard takes a good- sized group from Boston Public Schools. Perhaps others have similar agreements with their local systems.

Nope. That stat is skewed because of Boston Latin, where most of the kids of Harvard, MIT, BC, BU, Simmons, etc. attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a)recruited athlete plus good grades/scores
b) URM plus good grades/scoresc
c) legacy plus good grades/scores

OR
d) close to perfect grades/scores and something else remarkable.


If you're not a, b or c you need a stellar academic record plus something else that sets you apart from the crowd. Something that makes you remarkable.

e) family has extraordinary wealth. (Such that they are capable of 7- or 8-digit donations.) Plus good grades/test scores.

You say this on every thread. It is not the wealth itself that gets the kid accepted, it is the wealth that gives the kid access to things that get them accepted. We know one family who decided their 5th grade DD should set up a charity in Malawi building school huts. So they invested in that and that's what she does every summer. It wasn't her idea, or her cash, but she did it and it will probably impress at least one admissions person.

DP. For legacy status to count, you need to give Harvard seven figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come from a top boarding school

An interesting question is how much of this is the legacy effect?

According to this, about 40% of Harvard’s entering class is from the NE, but almost 40% of those students are legacies.

https://features.thecrimson.com/2017/freshman-survey/makeup-narrative/

Only 16.6% of class of 2025 are from the NE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a)recruited athlete plus good grades/scores
b) URM plus good grades/scoresc
c) legacy plus good grades/scores

OR
d) close to perfect grades/scores and something else remarkable.


If you're not a, b or c you need a stellar academic record plus something else that sets you apart from the crowd. Something that makes you remarkable.

e) family has extraordinary wealth. (Such that they are capable of 7- or 8-digit donations.) Plus good grades/test scores.

You say this on every thread. It is not the wealth itself that gets the kid accepted, it is the wealth that gives the kid access to things that get them accepted. We know one family who decided their 5th grade DD should set up a charity in Malawi building school huts. So they invested in that and that's what she does every summer. It wasn't her idea, or her cash, but she did it and it will probably impress at least one admissions person.

DP. For legacy status to count, you need to give Harvard seven figures.

15% of each class is legacy. These people are not all giving seven figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a)recruited athlete plus good grades/scores
b) URM plus good grades/scoresc
c) legacy plus good grades/scores

OR
d) close to perfect grades/scores and something else remarkable.


If you're not a, b or c you need a stellar academic record plus something else that sets you apart from the crowd. Something that makes you remarkable.

d) may be still the majority for brilliant kids from ordinary families (~70% of the admitted).
So, one should not largely attribute his kid's rejection to a) b) or c). You may complain about those all day long, but many regular family kids do get in.

This was my kid. Public school. No associaiation at all with the university prior in the way of legacy or donations. We are not rich. No sport. Just really good grades, test scores and a challenging course of study. She did apply ED. She did show demonstrated interest. I'm sure luck didn't hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Unhooked white and Asian kids?" Probably not. In fact, it's pretty much statistically impossible.

For the class of 2021, 75.9% are white or Asian.

You typed a lot more after that, but there was no reason to read it as you admitted PP was right in your third sentence.

Nope. “White and Asian” is not the same as “unhooked white and Asian.”

Is it your belief that none of the legacies admitted to Harvard are white or Asian? How about athletes? First Gen? Faculty children? Rural?

I think you need to read the OPs statement again, learn the meaning of "largest", and admit that your argument is faulty because your points carry gigantic assumptions. For example "Even allowing for some overlap between hooks (First gen/recruited athlete? Legacy/Director's List? Rural/first gen?)" when in fact you don't know what percentage of those hooks are what race. You use them all as exclusions.

You don't have the facts or data to support your assumptions.

The most you can say is that PP does not know the percentage of "unhooked" and should remove that from his statement, which would weaken it. But your admission that "For the class of 2021, 75.9% are white or Asian." throws your claim out wholesale. Sorry.

So, for a discussion of whether hooks impact admissions, whether a student is hooked or not is irrelevant?

Now, I’m betting you are an Ivy grad, because this combination of arrogance and stupidity is rare in any other population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Unhooked white and Asian kids?" Probably not. In fact, it's pretty much statistically impossible.

For the class of 2021, 75.9% are white or Asian.

You typed a lot more after that, but there was no reason to read it as you admitted PP was right in your third sentence.

Nope. “White and Asian” is not the same as “unhooked white and Asian.”

Is it your belief that none of the legacies admitted to Harvard are white or Asian? How about athletes? First Gen? Faculty children? Rural?

I think you need to read the OPs statement again, learn the meaning of "largest", and admit that your argument is faulty because your points carry gigantic assumptions. For example "Even allowing for some overlap between hooks (First gen/recruited athlete? Legacy/Director's List? Rural/first gen?)" when in fact you don't know what percentage of those hooks are what race. You use them all as exclusions.

You don't have the facts or data to support your assumptions.

The most you can say is that PP does not know the percentage of "unhooked" and should remove that from his statement, which would weaken it. But your admission that "For the class of 2021, 75.9% are white or Asian." throws your claim out wholesale. Sorry.

So, for a discussion of whether hooks impact admissions, whether a student is hooked or not is irrelevant?

Now, I’m betting you are an Ivy grad, because this combination of arrogance and stupidity is rare in any other population.

Not an Ivy grad. Do have a kid at one and have been to campus many times so I know others. Also not resorting to ad hominems. You defeated your own argument in your third sentence. I get how that must make you feel. If it eases your pain to call me names, please go ahead. It does not bother me.

Your claim requires the assumption that no URMs are also recruited athletes, first gen, or legacies. It's preposterous, and easily shown to be false by a quick look at roster photographs. Regardless, it is all speculation, as you don't have the data, except for the one data point you began with: "For the class of 2021, 75.9% are white or Asian".

You can respond with more name calling if you like, but unless you have other data, I rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

e) family has extraordinary wealth. (Such that they are capable of 7- or 8-digit donations.) Plus good grades/test scores.

You say this on every thread. It is not the wealth itself that gets the kid accepted, it is the wealth that gives the kid access to things that get them accepted. We know one family who decided their 5th grade DD should set up a charity in Malawi building school huts. So they invested in that and that's what she does every summer. It wasn't her idea, or her cash, but she did it and it will probably impress at least one admissions person.

yes, it's the wealth itself in many cases, look at the ex-prez and some in his fam

no, nobody will be impressed that her parents set up something and she went there every summer, no more than a kid that worked at mcdonald's every summer in high school

It's definitely the wealth in some cases.

You see this play out at the "Big3" (top) DC privates.
10 kids apply to Princeton or Yale or wherever. The one that gets in has a parent who makes $15 million/year despite having mediocre or no extracurriculars and inferior grades.

I have seen this play out SO many times at my kids' school.

I think you are referring to Sidwell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a)recruited athlete plus good grades/scores
b) URM plus good grades/scoresc
c) legacy plus good grades/scores

OR
d) close to perfect grades/scores and something else remarkable.


If you're not a, b or c you need a stellar academic record plus something else that sets you apart from the crowd. Something that makes you remarkable.

e) family has extraordinary wealth. (Such that they are capable of 7- or 8-digit donations.) Plus good grades/test scores.

You say this on every thread. It is not the wealth itself that gets the kid accepted, it is the wealth that gives the kid access to things that get them accepted. We know one family who decided their 5th grade DD should set up a charity in Malawi building school huts. So they invested in that and that's what she does every summer. It wasn't her idea, or her cash, but she did it and it will probably impress at least one admissions person.

DP. For legacy status to count, you need to give Harvard seven figures.

15% of each class is legacy. These people are not all giving seven figures. [/quote]


They are otherwise hooked. Children of URM legacies - that's the game Stanford plays. It gives Stanford the opportunity to please an alum and check off the URM box. I'm a Harvard graduate. My kid had all the bells and whistles and national awards. I can't afford to give seven figures. He was qualified but didn't get in because he wasn't otherwise hooked. Went to Oxford instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Unhooked white and Asian kids?" Probably not. In fact, it's pretty much statistically impossible.

For the class of 2021, 75.9% are white or Asian.

You typed a lot more after that, but there was no reason to read it as you admitted PP was right in your third sentence.

You missed the OP's point-- unhooked is the key term. How many of the 76% are legacies, athletes, development cases, rural, first Gen, etc.?

Why would the OP decide that none of the URM students are also in the other categories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Unhooked white and Asian kids?" Probably not. In fact, it's pretty much statistically impossible.

For the class of 2021, 75.9% are white or Asian.

You typed a lot more after that, but there was no reason to read it as you admitted PP was right in your third sentence.

You missed the OP's point-- unhooked is the key term. How many of the 76% are legacies, athletes, development cases, rural, first Gen, etc.?

Why would the OP decide that none of the URM students are also in the other categories?

I don't disagree that URM students also overlap with those categories. But many of the 76% are also in those categories, especially white students in the categories of legacies, athletes (e.g., swimming, tennis, lacrosse, etc.) and development cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This was my kid. Public school. No association at all with the university prior in the way of legacy or donations. We are not rich. No sport. Just really good grades, test scores and a challenging course of study. She did apply ED. She did show demonstrated interest. I'm sure luck didn't hurt.

no way, that's not enough you're likely URM ... what does 'demonstrated interest' even mean??? what other ECs? at least some of these should happen, typically more than one: recognition at the national level for EC, famous parents, URM, unique story (overcoming disability, other hardship), full pay and/or rich parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: They are otherwise hooked. Children of URM legacies - that's the game Stanford plays. It gives Stanford the opportunity to please an alum and check off the URM box. I'm a Harvard graduate. My kid had all the bells and whistles and national awards. I can't afford to give seven figures. He was qualified but didn't get in because he wasn't otherwise hooked. Went to Oxford instead.

why 'instead' ... Oxford is better!

[Anonymous]

Three routes:
1. URM
2. Athlete
3. High profile or very rich (donate building rich)

Otherwise it’s akin to winning the lottery for your run of the mill super smart dc area UMC white kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a)recruited athlete plus good grades/scores
b) URM plus good grades/scoresc
c) legacy plus good grades/scores

OR
d) close to perfect grades/scores and something else remarkable.


If you're not a, b or c you need a stellar academic record plus something else that sets you apart from the crowd. Something that makes you remarkable.

e) family has extraordinary wealth. (Such that they are capable of 7- or 8-digit donations.) Plus good grades/test scores.

You say this on every thread. It is not the wealth itself that gets the kid accepted, it is the wealth that gives the kid access to things that get them accepted. We know one family who decided their 5th grade DD should set up a charity in Malawi building school huts. So they invested in that and that's what she does every summer. It wasn't her idea, or her cash, but she did it and it will probably impress at least one admissions person.

DP. For legacy status to count, you need to give Harvard seven figures.

15% of each class is legacy. These people are not all giving seven figures. [/quote]


They are otherwise hooked. Children of URM legacies - that's the game Stanford plays. It gives Stanford the opportunity to please an alum and check off the URM box. I'm a Harvard graduate. My kid had all the bells and whistles and national awards. I can't afford to give seven figures. He was qualified but didn't get in because he wasn't otherwise hooked. Went to Oxford instead.

My kids were legacies at Harvard. We have given less than $5k since graduation. They both got in. So what’s your point?