Ivy Day. Good luck everyone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown: Rejected
UPen: accepted
Harvard: accepted
4.6 GPA
11 APs all 5s
1540 SAT
Great EC

These are the same stats as students rejected from Emery and Rice. Does it all boil down to ECs? Essays that catch someone’s eye? Recommendation letters? I don’t view it as a lottery but a very subjective process. (Although congratulations to your DC & hoping she has a wonderful college experience!)

Yes, and yes. Getting into the schools with the lowest acceptance rate is NOT about "perfect stats." Tons of kids with perfect stats get turned down and kids with imperfect stats get in all the time. If GPA/SAT were the basis of admission it could done by computer. Really really good GPA/test scores get you to the next round and that is where the holistic admissions process kicks in. And that is the essay/ECs/letter piece. Those are essential for the most in-demand schools.[/quote]


Also agree with a pp that it's holistic in terms of variety. There are only so many top stats stem kids with a string instrument ec they'll accept. You're better off with a less common humanities focus or something else that differentiates you from the pack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown: Rejected
UPen: accepted
Harvard: accepted
4.6 GPA
11 APs all 5s
1540 SAT
Great EC

These are the same stats as students rejected from Emery and Rice. Does it all boil down to ECs? Essays that catch someone’s eye? Recommendation letters? I don’t view it as a lottery but a very subjective process. (Although congratulations to your DC & hoping she has a wonderful college experience!)

Yes, and yes. Getting into the schools with the lowest acceptance rate is NOT about "perfect stats." Tons of kids with perfect stats get turned down and kids with imperfect stats get in all the time. If GPA/SAT were the basis of admission it could done by computer. Really really good GPA/test scores get you to the next round and that is where the holistic admissions process kicks in. And that is the essay/ECs/letter piece. Those are essential for the most in-demand schools.[/quote]


Also agree with a pp that it's holistic in terms of variety. There are only so many top stats stem kids with a string instrument ec they'll accept. You're better off with a less common humanities focus or something else that differentiates you from the pack.

Including home region and background and parental status (first gen/legacy) and sporting ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that’s what people on here mean when they say “Great ECs” my kid has a better shot than I thought. I though “Great ECs” meant State champion sprinter and Academic Decathalon 2d Place. The stuff listed by pp is attainable!

music though I think is the real EC schools like to see even if it's not national level.

Where is your evidence for this?

Yes, I'd wonder about thus. But Harvard does like well rounded and especially looks for commitment to service. Still think PP's kid is probably not applying from DMV though.

I also think there are hooks we're not be told about. My kid with these kind of stats and ECs was competing with classmates with patents for detecting eye diseases or who had discovered solutions to math mysteries that university professors hadn't been able to solve in the last 100 years. I also wonder about whether participation in girl scouts and bumble bee soccer in kindergarten should count.

Lots of kids only have access to Girl Scouts & “bumblebee soccer” as extracurriculars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rejected from Brown and Dartmouth.

What a strange combination to apply to

My kid also applied to both. Those were the only Ivy Applications. Currently at Brown.

NP. I wonder if our kids know each other! Mine applied to both too and chose Brown! (Last year).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that’s what people on here mean when they say “Great ECs” my kid has a better shot than I thought. I though “Great ECs” meant State champion sprinter and Academic Decathalon 2d Place. The stuff listed by pp is attainable!

music though I think is the real EC schools like to see even if it's not national level.

Where is your evidence for this?

Yes, I'd wonder about thus. But Harvard does like well rounded and especially looks for commitment to service. Still think PP's kid is probably not applying from DMV though.

I also think there are hooks we're not be told about. My kid with these kind of stats and ECs was competing with classmates with patents for detecting eye diseases or who had discovered solutions to math mysteries that university professors hadn't been able to solve in the last 100 years. I also wonder about whether participation in girl scouts and bumble bee soccer in kindergarten should count.

NP here. I will say up front that my kid goes to a DC private, which many say is a hook in itself. But the kids accepted to Ivies are very smart but no one has a patent and a lot have what I would consider good ECs (student government, varsity athlete, plays instrument) but all interests at the school. Maybe we are talking past each other on math because some Ivy kids were taking extremely high level math but many simply had BC Calc. And there are also athletes, who are not always top kids (some are) but have a lot of sports talent and will be able to manage the academics just as they have in HS. Legacy does seem to help but not all admitted kids are legacy.

Anyway, I think there are way more qualified kids than spots so many worthy kids are denied. But the myth of the “super student” is inflated on this board, imo. You would find all of them impressive but they haven’t cured cancer.

When your kid goes to a magnet high school these things aren't a myth. In reality some students were looking for treatments for brain tumors and had filed for patents. That is why there are discussions about whether you might be better off being a star at your base school if you are less than a super student.

What is perhaps not so obvious to the general public about a magnet like TJ is the incredible infrastructure they have in place to get their students research opportunities with colleges and industry mentors to partake in these kinds of ECs. My kid was interested in Regeneron and I thought had a good idea, but all the administrative hurdles that the my kid / school had to to do in order to pursue the idea were quite unexpected and would have required a ton of effort just to be able to start the project. TJ, Blair, etc. I imagine have all that infrastructure well established...no kid has to create that from scratch as mine would have had to do.

I have a Blair kid, and we didn't see a ton of infrastructure. I think kids make connections w/ internships and reach out to area scientists or have a parent in science who connects them. One girl was sequencing genome, and it seemed so impressive until we found out it was in her mom's lab!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that’s what people on here mean when they say “Great ECs” my kid has a better shot than I thought. I though “Great ECs” meant State champion sprinter and Academic Decathalon 2d Place. The stuff listed by pp is attainable!

music though I think is the real EC schools like to see even if it's not national level.

Where is your evidence for this?

Yes, I'd wonder about thus. But Harvard does like well rounded and especially looks for commitment to service. Still think PP's kid is probably not applying from DMV though.

I also think there are hooks we're not be told about. My kid with these kind of stats and ECs was competing with classmates with patents for detecting eye diseases or who had discovered solutions to math mysteries that university professors hadn't been able to solve in the last 100 years. I also wonder about whether participation in girl scouts and bumble bee soccer in kindergarten should count.

Lots of kids only have access to Girl Scouts & “bumblebee soccer” as extracurriculars.

Sure, but we were told only to include high school ECs, not stuff our kid was doing when they were 5. Bumblebee soccer is what they do when they are 5 when the whole team is swarming after the ball.

[Anonymous]

The kid who got into the top schools comes out as someone nice and genuinely interested in the ECs with long term commitment and not just gaming some fancy EC is the last few years of high school for college. That is one of the many things that matter. Colleges try to fill their priorities. That includes some academic superstars- not your 4.0 all 5's in APs, top of class student.- but someone who competes at national international level in math and physics olympiad and does well, for example. These are the academic priorities of the college. Not all of them get in as colleges have other priorities, , sports, orchestra, legacy, unenrolled majors, URM, faculty, genuine kids who add to college environment. All these kids will have fulfilled the basic minimum in terms of stats (not perfect), which may be different for different groups, but if they are accepted, they fulfill some of the other college priorities. It is nothing about the kid after the point , it is about what the college is looking for and what they feel they need.

[Anonymous]

NP. I’m openly skeptical of the story of the “ordinary” applicant who got in. There is another hook or the person is a troll.

[Anonymous]

NP. I’m openly skeptical of the story of the “ordinary” applicant who got in. There is another hook or the person is a troll.

+1. I know 4 kids at Ivy or Ivy adjacent schools and they're all smart & quirky with pointy ECs.

[Anonymous]

Yes pointy. They seem to have the fastest mile time or have published research or win a national debate tourney or one other thing that is very very pointy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP. I’m openly skeptical of the story of the “ordinary” applicant who got in. There is another hook or the person is a troll.

+1. I know 4 kids at Ivy or Ivy adjacent schools and they're all smart & quirky with pointy ECs.

And those 4 constitute what percentage of total admitted students in the colleges you referred to? You look at a tree and generalize to the forest. Must have a hollow in the left side of your brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown: Rejected
UPen: accepted
Harvard: accepted
4.6 GPA
11 APs all 5s
1540 SAT
Great EC

These are the same stats as students rejected from Emery and Rice. Does it all boil down to ECs? Essays that catch someone’s eye? Recommendation letters? I don’t view it as a lottery but a very subjective process. (Although congratulations to your DC & hoping she has a wonderful college experience!)

It's a lottery. yes, an essay could sway the AO during the 2-3 mins they are reading the application. But in reality, it's a lottery and a bit of luck. It's not that subjective. They are getting 40-60K applications, they do NOT have the time to spend 5+ mins on each one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that’s what people on here mean when they say “Great ECs” my kid has a better shot than I thought. I though “Great ECs” meant State champion sprinter and Academic Decathalon 2d Place. The stuff listed by pp is attainable!

music though I think is the real EC schools like to see even if it's not national level.

Where is your evidence for this?

Yes, I'd wonder about thus. But Harvard does like well rounded and especially looks for commitment to service. Still think PP's kid is probably not applying from DMV though.

I also think there are hooks we're not be told about. My kid with these kind of stats and ECs was competing with classmates with patents for detecting eye diseases or who had discovered solutions to math mysteries that university professors hadn't been able to solve in the last 100 years. I also wonder about whether participation in girl scouts and bumble bee soccer in kindergarten should count.

Lots of kids only have access to Girl Scouts & “bumblebee soccer” as extracurriculars.

Sure, but we were told only to include high school ECs, not stuff our kid was doing when they were 5. Bumblebee soccer is what they do when they are 5 when the whole team is swarming after the ball.

If there are lifelong ECs that are passions and show service and/or commitment, unfortunately you were given bad advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown: Rejected
UPen: accepted
Harvard: accepted
4.6 GPA
11 APs all 5s
1540 SAT
Great EC

These are the same stats as students rejected from Emery and Rice. Does it all boil down to ECs? Essays that catch someone’s eye? Recommendation letters? I don’t view it as a lottery but a very subjective process. (Although congratulations to your DC & hoping she has a wonderful college experience!)

Yes, and yes. Getting into the schools with the lowest acceptance rate is NOT about "perfect stats." Tons of kids with perfect stats get turned down and kids with imperfect stats get in all the time. If GPA/SAT were the basis of admission it could done by computer. Really really good GPA/test scores get you to the next round and that is where the holistic admissions process kicks in. And that is the essay/ECs/letter piece. Those are essential for the most in-demand schools.[/quote]


Also agree with a pp that it's holistic in terms of variety. There are only so many top stats stem kids with a string instrument ec they'll accept. You're better off with a less common humanities focus or something else that differentiates you from the pack.

Including home region and background and parental status (first gen/legacy) and sporting ability.

The priority athletes are not a part of Ivy Day, so athletic level isn't helpful now. They already know they are in!
What does the info about stats and first gen/legacy give you and others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. I’m openly skeptical of the story of the “ordinary” applicant who got in. There is another hook or the person is a troll.

+1. I know 4 kids at Ivy or Ivy adjacent schools and they're all smart & quirky with pointy ECs.

And those 4 constitute what percentage of total admitted students in the colleges you referred to? You look at a tree and generalize to the forest. Must have a hollow in the left side of your brain.

I’m not the PP but I did used to work in admissions and I agree the story above is likely untrue unless there is another hook not being disclosed. Those stats are simply not enough for the schools listed if the applicant is unhooked.