What colleges are the rest of TJ students (not in the top 20%) going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

What? That's so racist. Asian students are not the one dimensional prep robots that you seem to think. If you look at any elite musical ensembles, they're dominated by Asian students. Certain sports have a decent number of Asian participants. If Asian students had applications otherwise lacking in heft, elite colleges wouldn't need to create a 'personality' score and ding them on that to deny admissions.

PP. My statement did not come from any sort of racial animus, but from experience in application evaluation.

Your point about "any elite musical ensembles" is false. It is true only with respect to orchestras. Bands and choirs do not generally have high representation of Asian students. Furthermore, those orchestras overwhelmingly are dominated by East and Southeast Asian students, rather than South Asian. It is a matter of some note in college admissions circles that participation in orchestra is typical of East Asian applicants and is not generally a separator except in cases of national-level participation.

Certain sports do indeed have a decent number of Asian participants. For the most part, those are sports which are individual in nature - tennis, table tennis, and badminton are those most frequently observed. With the exception of recruitable athletes, participation in individual sports is not looked on as kindly in the admissions process as participation in team sports, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. If they're not, I'm happy to explain.

The students who are admitted to elite schools receive that honor because it is in the best interest of the school that they receive it. It's not the job of the admissions team to find "the best students" and admit them to the school - it's to admit the group of students as a collective who are most likely to raise the profile of the school - to inspire greater application numbers and greater levels of private investment.

Parents who wish to augment their child's chances at admission to elite colleges and universities would do well to understand that and significantly adjust their approaches to their children's education.

Tough pill to swallow but pp is absolutely spot on.

And none of it will likely be legally defensible when the Supreme Court rulings on Harvard and UNC are issued.

No ruling by the Supreme Court will effect what was stated above.

That is exactly what they are ruling on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://issuu.com/tjtoday/docs/senior_issue_2022_combined

I see people referencing large numbers going to CMU (12) Michigan (11), UIUC (11) and Purdue (10) but what about Maryland (21)! I'm aware of UMD's strength in CS and engineering. That makes VT (7) even more puzzling.

That’s from last year

Last year is the last year for which there is any data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Admissions officers were specifically downgrading the personality scores of Asian applicants. It wasn't the people who interviewed them that gave the low scores, it was the admissions office.
The colleges could do a race blind admissions, if they really want to claim that they are not discriminating against Asians.

Citation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3704542-harvards-cult-of-personality/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/15/politics/harvard-admissions-asian-american/index.html

Okay - what you cited here with these articles was that Asian-American students scored lower in "personality" scoring than other applicants.

Your statement implies that admissions officers were doing something intentional to grade these students lower from a personality perspective, rather than accepting the notion that they might simply score lower in these areas because their upbringing causes them to perform poorly on assessments of personality.

Once upon a time, I worked with students on their college interviewing skills. While not the case 100% of the time (more like, say, 95%), I usually had to spend significant time with Asian students on the way they carried themselves during the interviews. They were convinced in most cases that the job was to find ways to wedge all of their accomplishments into conversations, and their answers (at least when we started) were all rehearsed to the point of near deadpan.

They're not scoring low on personality because of some vast conspiracy - they're scoring low because what they offer in terms of personality, for better or for worse, is not what colleges are looking for.

Always remember this about college - it's a business. Colleges are looking for students who either a) are likely to donate directly to the university or b) are likely to inspire others to do so.

+1000. Exam scores, GPA, awards, activities... everything is tangential to these two things. It's a meritocracy, but you have to understand their definition of merit and play that game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Admissions officers were specifically downgrading the personality scores of Asian applicants. It wasn't the people who interviewed them that gave the low scores, it was the admissions office.
The colleges could do a race blind admissions, if they really want to claim that they are not discriminating against Asians.

Citation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3704542-harvards-cult-of-personality/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/15/politics/harvard-admissions-asian-american/index.html

Okay - what you cited here with these articles was that Asian-American students scored lower in "personality" scoring than other applicants.

Your statement implies that admissions officers were doing something intentional to grade these students lower from a personality perspective, rather than accepting the notion that they might simply score lower in these areas because their upbringing causes them to perform poorly on assessments of personality.

Once upon a time, I worked with students on their college interviewing skills. While not the case 100% of the time (more like, say, 95%), I usually had to spend significant time with Asian students on the way they carried themselves during the interviews. They were convinced in most cases that the job was to find ways to wedge all of their accomplishments into conversations, and their answers (at least when we started) were all rehearsed to the point of near deadpan.

They're not scoring low on personality because of some vast conspiracy - they're scoring low because what they offer in terms of personality, for better or for worse, is not what colleges are looking for.

Always remember this about college - it's a business. Colleges are looking for students who either a) are likely to donate directly to the university or b) are likely to inspire others to do so.

This is so, so important. Asian parents have a dangerous propensity for engaging in groupthink when it comes to college admissions, which is devastating to their children's chances in an environment that favors authenticity and originality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Admissions officers were specifically downgrading the personality scores of Asian applicants. It wasn't the people who interviewed them that gave the low scores, it was the admissions office.
The colleges could do a race blind admissions, if they really want to claim that they are not discriminating against Asians.

Citation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3704542-harvards-cult-of-personality/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/15/politics/harvard-admissions-asian-american/index.html

Okay - what you cited here with these articles was that Asian-American students scored lower in "personality" scoring than other applicants.

Your statement implies that admissions officers were doing something intentional to grade these students lower from a personality perspective, rather than accepting the notion that they might simply score lower in these areas because their upbringing causes them to perform poorly on assessments of personality.

Once upon a time, I worked with students on their college interviewing skills. While not the case 100% of the time (more like, say, 95%), I usually had to spend significant time with Asian students on the way they carried themselves during the interviews. They were convinced in most cases that the job was to find ways to wedge all of their accomplishments into conversations, and their answers (at least when we started) were all rehearsed to the point of near deadpan.

They're not scoring low on personality because of some vast conspiracy - they're scoring low because what they offer in terms of personality, for better or for worse, is not what colleges are looking for.

Always remember this about college - it's a business. Colleges are looking for students who either a) are likely to donate directly to the university or b) are likely to inspire others to do so.

This is so, so important. Asian parents have a dangerous propensity for engaging in groupthink when it comes to college admissions, which is devastating to their children's chances in an environment that favors authenticity and originality.

The AOs don't meet the vast majority of students. The Harvard case showed that the interviewers gave these students positive marks.

So, how did those AOs manage to judge the applicant's personality never having met them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Admissions officers were specifically downgrading the personality scores of Asian applicants. It wasn't the people who interviewed them that gave the low scores, it was the admissions office.
The colleges could do a race blind admissions, if they really want to claim that they are not discriminating against Asians.

Citation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3704542-harvards-cult-of-personality/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/15/politics/harvard-admissions-asian-american/index.html

Okay - what you cited here with these articles was that Asian-American students scored lower in "personality" scoring than other applicants.

Your statement implies that admissions officers were doing something intentional to grade these students lower from a personality perspective, rather than accepting the notion that they might simply score lower in these areas because their upbringing causes them to perform poorly on assessments of personality.

Once upon a time, I worked with students on their college interviewing skills. While not the case 100% of the time (more like, say, 95%), I usually had to spend significant time with Asian students on the way they carried themselves during the interviews. They were convinced in most cases that the job was to find ways to wedge all of their accomplishments into conversations, and their answers (at least when we started) were all rehearsed to the point of near deadpan.

They're not scoring low on personality because of some vast conspiracy - they're scoring low because what they offer in terms of personality, for better or for worse, is not what colleges are looking for.

Always remember this about college - it's a business. Colleges are looking for students who either a) are likely to donate directly to the university or b) are likely to inspire others to do so.

This is so, so important. Asian parents have a dangerous propensity for engaging in groupthink when it comes to college admissions, which is devastating to their children's chances in an environment that favors authenticity and originality.

And the wealthy white parents who pay $$$ for travel expensive sports don't practice "group think"? I smell a soft form of bigotry here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Admissions officers were specifically downgrading the personality scores of Asian applicants. It wasn't the people who interviewed them that gave the low scores, it was the admissions office.
The colleges could do a race blind admissions, if they really want to claim that they are not discriminating against Asians.

Citation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3704542-harvards-cult-of-personality/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/15/politics/harvard-admissions-asian-american/index.html

Okay - what you cited here with these articles was that Asian-American students scored lower in "personality" scoring than other applicants.

Your statement implies that admissions officers were doing something intentional to grade these students lower from a personality perspective, rather than accepting the notion that they might simply score lower in these areas because their upbringing causes them to perform poorly on assessments of personality.

Once upon a time, I worked with students on their college interviewing skills. While not the case 100% of the time (more like, say, 95%), I usually had to spend significant time with Asian students on the way they carried themselves during the interviews. They were convinced in most cases that the job was to find ways to wedge all of their accomplishments into conversations, and their answers (at least when we started) were all rehearsed to the point of near deadpan.

They're not scoring low on personality because of some vast conspiracy - they're scoring low because what they offer in terms of personality, for better or for worse, is not what colleges are looking for.

Always remember this about college - it's a business. Colleges are looking for students who either a) are likely to donate directly to the university or b) are likely to inspire others to do so.

This is so, so important. Asian parents have a dangerous propensity for engaging in groupthink when it comes to college admissions, which is devastating to their children's chances in an environment that favors authenticity and originality.

And the wealthy white parents who pay $$$ for travel expensive sports don't practice "group think"? I smell a soft form of bigotry here.

They absolutely do. And overwhelmingly, their children are not successful in gaining elite college admission and/or scholarships as a result. It's just that a few of them do, and those are spots that you want for your kids.

And for the record, I believe that that's every bit as damaging as streamlining kids into STEM from an early age. But this form is entitled "Advanced Academic Programs", so travel sports shouldn't really be a major topic of conversation. There are other fora for that on these boards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Admissions officers were specifically downgrading the personality scores of Asian applicants. It wasn't the people who interviewed them that gave the low scores, it was the admissions office.
The colleges could do a race blind admissions, if they really want to claim that they are not discriminating against Asians.

Citation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3704542-harvards-cult-of-personality/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/15/politics/harvard-admissions-asian-american/index.html

Okay - what you cited here with these articles was that Asian-American students scored lower in "personality" scoring than other applicants.

Your statement implies that admissions officers were doing something intentional to grade these students lower from a personality perspective, rather than accepting the notion that they might simply score lower in these areas because their upbringing causes them to perform poorly on assessments of personality.

Once upon a time, I worked with students on their college interviewing skills. While not the case 100% of the time (more like, say, 95%), I usually had to spend significant time with Asian students on the way they carried themselves during the interviews. They were convinced in most cases that the job was to find ways to wedge all of their accomplishments into conversations, and their answers (at least when we started) were all rehearsed to the point of near deadpan.

They're not scoring low on personality because of some vast conspiracy - they're scoring low because what they offer in terms of personality, for better or for worse, is not what colleges are looking for.

Always remember this about college - it's a business. Colleges are looking for students who either a) are likely to donate directly to the university or b) are likely to inspire others to do so.

This is so, so important. Asian parents have a dangerous propensity for engaging in groupthink when it comes to college admissions, which is devastating to their children's chances in an environment that favors authenticity and originality.

The AOs don't meet the vast majority of students. The Harvard case showed that the interviewers gave these students positive marks.

So, how did those AOs manage to judge the applicant's personality never having met them?

The interviews provide a part of the overall narrative of the application. The essays provide another, and all of this goes against the backdrop of the remainder of the application. Different schools evaluate personality in different ways - I can't speak to Harvard in particular, but I know with respect to my school a big part of my job was to report back on the student's interest in contributing to the school environment rather than just taking from it, and, critically, what it was about our school that made it important to the student to be admitted and to attend.

This latter part speaks to the desire for the school to report strong "yield" numbers, which are important for rankings and perception. "Yield" refers to the percentage of offers that are accepted, and a part of the interviewer's job is to determine how likely it is that the student will accept an offer.

Yes, you heard me right. Schools will frequently reject or waitlist students who are very well-qualified for their school for no reason other than that they don't believe the student will accept the offer of admission based on what they know. This is a far bigger factor for TJ students with respect to Ivy League and other elite schools than any perceived "quota" and is one of the biggest reasons TJ kids don't get into schools that the stats would suggest that they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Actually, Asian applicants' application packages present the strongest test scores/GPA as well as the strongest leadership quality, EC activities, volunteering and service, strongest recommendations from teachers, very strong/strongest essays, strongest national/international awards etc. compared to other groups. Stop spreading disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

What? That's so racist. Asian students are not the one dimensional prep robots that you seem to think. If you look at any elite musical ensembles, they're dominated by Asian students. Certain sports have a decent number of Asian participants. If Asian students had applications otherwise lacking in heft, elite colleges wouldn't need to create a 'personality' score and ding them on that to deny admissions.

PP. My statement did not come from any sort of racial animus, but from experience in application evaluation.

Your point about "any elite musical ensembles" is false. It is true only with respect to orchestras. Bands and choirs do not generally have high representation of Asian students. Furthermore, those orchestras overwhelmingly are dominated by East and Southeast Asian students, rather than South Asian. It is a matter of some note in college admissions circles that participation in orchestra is typical of East Asian applicants and is not generally a separator except in cases of national-level participation.

Certain sports do indeed have a decent number of Asian participants. For the most part, those are sports which are individual in nature - tennis, table tennis, and badminton are those most frequently observed. With the exception of recruitable athletes, participation in individual sports is not looked on as kindly in the admissions process as participation in team sports, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. If they're not, I'm happy to explain.

The students who are admitted to elite schools receive that honor because it is in the best interest of the school that they receive it. It's not the job of the admissions team to find "the best students" and admit them to the school - it's to admit the group of students as a collective who are most likely to raise the profile of the school - to inspire greater application numbers and greater levels of private investment.

Parents who wish to augment their child's chances at admission to elite colleges and universities would do well to understand that and significantly adjust their approaches to their children's education.

Tough pill to swallow but pp is absolutely spot on.

And none of it will likely be legally defensible when the Supreme Court rulings on Harvard and UNC are issued.

No ruling by the Supreme Court will effect what was stated above.

That is exactly what they are ruling on.

Regardless of what TJ parents hope for, Harvard is not taking the middle of the class from TJ. Nothing that PP listed will change. The only change will be URMs will no longer receive preference. That doesn't change admissions for school bands or for the football team. Even after the change, schools will just switch to SES, and being URM is not a protected class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Actually, Asian applicants' application packages present the strongest test scores/GPA as well as the strongest leadership quality, EC activities, volunteering and service, strongest recommendations from teachers, very strong/strongest essays, strongest national/international awards etc. compared to other groups. Stop spreading disinformation.

PP. You are correct with respect to test scores, GPA, and national/international awards, and that's all. In all of the other areas, you are incorrect.

Leadership quality: Asian students are well-noted for inventing leadership opportunities for themselves through the creation of new clubs and, in many cases, non-profit organizations that have no apparent plan beyond a student's high school years. Major red flag.

EC Activities: You're going to see a ton of Model UN, Debate, Orchestra, individual sports, and competitions, along with the aforementioned invented clubs. And an awful lot of breadth without depth, that comes through in the essays.

Volunteering and Service: This is straight-up false. To the extent that Asian students do volunteer, they tend to do so within their own communities and are frequently noted for helping those who don't need help - a great example is in tutoring for other high-income students. They don't tend to write well about these experiences because they're not actually passionate about anything other than using the volunteering opportunity as a springboard to college.

Recommendations from Teachers: By and large, recommendations from teachers about Asian students are broadly positive, but rarely enthusiastic.

Essays: They tend to lack authenticity and overwhelmingly sound designed to relitigate their resumes rather than shed light on the human being behind the achievements. They're dry and pre-packaged, and extremely difficult to distinguish from one another.

Are there exceptions? Certainly! Are there a lot of white kids who also fall into the above categories? Absolutely! But when you follow the above path, you'd better be the best of the best on that path, and more often than not you end up finding a lot of kids who are trying to be a cardboard cutout of someone else who was successful in the application process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Actually, Asian applicants' application packages present the strongest test scores/GPA as well as the strongest leadership quality, EC activities, volunteering and service, strongest recommendations from teachers, very strong/strongest essays, strongest national/international awards etc. compared to other groups. Stop spreading disinformation.

PP. You are correct with respect to test scores, GPA, and national/international awards, and that's all. In all of the other areas, you are incorrect.

Leadership quality: Asian students are well-noted for inventing leadership opportunities for themselves through the creation of new clubs and, in many cases, non-profit organizations that have no apparent plan beyond a student's high school years. Major red flag.

EC Activities: You're going to see a ton of Model UN, Debate, Orchestra, individual sports, and competitions, along with the aforementioned invented clubs. And an awful lot of breadth without depth, that comes through in the essays.

Volunteering and Service: This is straight-up false. To the extent that Asian students do volunteer, they tend to do so within their own communities and are frequently noted for helping those who don't need help - a great example is in tutoring for other high-income students. They don't tend to write well about these experiences because they're not actually passionate about anything other than using the volunteering opportunity as a springboard to college.

Recommendations from Teachers: By and large, recommendations from teachers about Asian students are broadly positive, but rarely enthusiastic.

Essays: They tend to lack authenticity and overwhelmingly sound designed to relitigate their resumes rather than shed light on the human being behind the achievements. They're dry and pre-packaged, and extremely difficult to distinguish from one another.

Are there exceptions? Certainly! Are there a lot of white kids who also fall into the above categories? Absolutely! But when you follow the above path, you'd better be the best of the best on that path, and more often than not you end up finding a lot of kids who are trying to be a cardboard cutout of someone else who was successful in the application process.

Are you saying all Asians look alike? That's racist stereotype from the 60's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

Actually, Asian applicants' application packages present the strongest test scores/GPA as well as the strongest leadership quality, EC activities, volunteering and service, strongest recommendations from teachers, very strong/strongest essays, strongest national/international awards etc. compared to other groups. Stop spreading disinformation.

PP. You are correct with respect to test scores, GPA, and national/international awards, and that's all. In all of the other areas, you are incorrect.

Leadership quality: Asian students are well-noted for inventing leadership opportunities for themselves through the creation of new clubs and, in many cases, non-profit organizations that have no apparent plan beyond a student's high school years. Major red flag.

EC Activities: You're going to see a ton of Model UN, Debate, Orchestra, individual sports, and competitions, along with the aforementioned invented clubs. And an awful lot of breadth without depth, that comes through in the essays.

Volunteering and Service: This is straight-up false. To the extent that Asian students do volunteer, they tend to do so within their own communities and are frequently noted for helping those who don't need help - a great example is in tutoring for other high-income students. They don't tend to write well about these experiences because they're not actually passionate about anything other than using the volunteering opportunity as a springboard to college.

Recommendations from Teachers: By and large, recommendations from teachers about Asian students are broadly positive, but rarely enthusiastic.

Essays: They tend to lack authenticity and overwhelmingly sound designed to relitigate their resumes rather than shed light on the human being behind the achievements. They're dry and pre-packaged, and extremely difficult to distinguish from one another.

Are there exceptions? Certainly! Are there a lot of white kids who also fall into the above categories? Absolutely! But when you follow the above path, you'd better be the best of the best on that path, and more often than not you end up finding a lot of kids who are trying to be a cardboard cutout of someone else who was successful in the application process.

Are you saying all Asians look alike? That's racist stereotype from the 60's.

No. I’m saying that the applications have a tendency to look similar because of a misguided belief about what’s actually important to college admissions officers.

This is understandable partly because elite schools in Asia operate differently within their admissions processes. You can see fairly clearly a significant difference between Asian applicants whose parents were raised in America versus in Asia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last year had UVA (49), W&M (26), VA Tech (7), VCU (10), GMU (10).
I think the middle of the road kids get shut out at UVA and VA Tech and go to OOS schools - Purdue, UIUC, Michigan etc

So you are saying VT only had 7 because they largely didn't admit TJ students?

This is a big change from a generation ago. I'm a late-90s TJ grad and my memory is that about 100 people went to UVA, a quarter of the class. Another huge chunk went to VT too. I wonder when the UVa numbers dropped?

Probably when the rest of VA started complaining!

A much higher percentage of TJ students now go OOS.

Are they going OOS by choice?

In 2011, 193 reported they are attending UVA, W&M, and VT. In 2022, that number had declined to 82, a decline of 58%, with each school down by more than 50%. You can say it is because they are more selective, but I suspect some other dynamic is in play. I don't think the same decline is happening at other NoVa schools.

It's because the caliber of TJ students wasn't the same by 2022. The student body was more homogenous and with all the entrance exams favoring prep over ability there were fewer gifted students.

I think it's less that the caliber of TJ students had declined so much as it is that they were too similar, to your second point. It doesn't do UVA or any other elite school any favors to admit a bunch of kids who all look the same on paper and who are trying to accomplish the same goals through the same means. That's bad for business.

There have always been students at TJ who follow the relatively rigid model of (maximize math advancement) + (maximize AP classes) + (focus exclusively on STEM ECs) + (layer in something like Model UN or Debate) + (compete in national level STEM events) in order to optimize their college application. Those students did a lot better in the admissions game when there were 50 in every class instead of 250.

An amusing phenomenon at TJ is whenever a kid announces that they've been accepted to an Ivy or a Duke or a Stanford or an MIT, immediately they get hundreds of friend requests and follows with DMs asking them how they did it. You then have hundreds of TJ kids who are trying to follow the same path, only to be disappointed when they learn that there's no value for the college in admitting 100 carbon copies of the same kid with the same resume as the one they already took.

For years kids were convinced that Crew was the magic secret to getting into an Ivy because a couple of kids a dozen years ago got in as recruited athletes when they had (for TJ) relatively weak scores and GPAs. But those kids were 6'7 and could pull an erg faster than anyone in the area. That same logic doesn't help a 5'6 kid with no muscle tone get to Princeton.

That sounds like the sorry defense of making Asians have much higher stats, etc. than other groups to be admitted.

The defense of making Asians have much higher stats than other groups to be admitted is that frequently, their stats are the strongest part of an application otherwise lacking in heft. Put differently, when the only reason you're getting in is because of your test scores, your test scores on average are going to be significantly higher than other admitted students who got in for other reasons.

This is to be expected when your community goes on message boards like this one and crows about sending their kids to extra enrichment sessions while poo-pooing other valuable uses of kids' time.

What? That's so racist. Asian students are not the one dimensional prep robots that you seem to think. If you look at any elite musical ensembles, they're dominated by Asian students. Certain sports have a decent number of Asian participants. If Asian students had applications otherwise lacking in heft, elite colleges wouldn't need to create a 'personality' score and ding them on that to deny admissions.

PP. My statement did not come from any sort of racial animus, but from experience in application evaluation.

Your point about "any elite musical ensembles" is false. It is true only with respect to orchestras. Bands and choirs do not generally have high representation of Asian students. Furthermore, those orchestras overwhelmingly are dominated by East and Southeast Asian students, rather than South Asian. It is a matter of some note in college admissions circles that participation in orchestra is typical of East Asian applicants and is not generally a separator except in cases of national-level participation.

Certain sports do indeed have a decent number of Asian participants. For the most part, those are sports which are individual in nature - tennis, table tennis, and badminton are those most frequently observed. With the exception of recruitable athletes, participation in individual sports is not looked on as kindly in the admissions process as participation in team sports, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. If they're not, I'm happy to explain.

The students who are admitted to elite schools receive that honor because it is in the best interest of the school that they receive it. It's not the job of the admissions team to find "the best students" and admit them to the school - it's to admit the group of students as a collective who are most likely to raise the profile of the school - to inspire greater application numbers and greater levels of private investment.

Parents who wish to augment their child's chances at admission to elite colleges and universities would do well to understand that and significantly adjust their approaches to their children's education.

Tough pill to swallow but pp is absolutely spot on.

And none of it will likely be legally defensible when the Supreme Court rulings on Harvard and UNC are issued.

No ruling by the Supreme Court will effect what was stated above.

That is exactly what they are ruling on.

They are ruling on race in admissions, particularly Asians. They are not ruling that colleges stop holistic admissions. See what was written above, which was claimed to legally indefensible after the Supreme Court's ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ted here with these articles was that Asian-American students scored lower in "personality" scoring than other applicants.

Your statement implies that admissions officers were doing something intentional to grade these students lower from a personality perspective, rather than accepting the notion that they might simply score lower in these areas because their upbringing causes them to perform poorly on assessments of personality.

The article says alumni rated Asian applicants' personality the same as whites and higher than blacks and Latinos.
This would be the people conducting the interviews.
The personality ratings dropped after the admissions officers rated the applications.
I think it's more likely that the people who come to people like you for help are the ones more needing of help.