Best advice for students of average-above average intelligence to get into elite schools?

[Anonymous]

try the advice from this college counselor. Most of it is free and it is very very good. Shirag Shemmassian, Ph.D.

I think some really good advice is to take the obvious hard classes at high school but also follow passions.

great advice is also to think carefully about summers. Use summer to go deeper into whatever their "thing" is in some unique way. internship or volunteer project, etc. be creative and stand out if possible. I have a 9th grader who wants to go to stanford and we joked that she's going to have to save a 1000 puppies one summer. but seriously, something stand out is key to getting college's attention.

another really important thing is to cultivate great recs. colleges are relying more and more on recs as essays become written with help. ideal choices are teachers your student has had for multiple years (language, band, orchestra) or teacher your student has travelled with or had as a club representative. You want someone who can speak to the growth your child has undergone through HS and who genuinely knows their heart.

Last, take rankings with a HUGE grain of salt, They are somewhat meaningless. College is about fit - not ranking. There are phenomenal colleges all over the country - big ones, small ones, northern ones, southern ones, western ones etc. Your child will be happy and thrive at one of them, but going by ranking alone won't increase the likelihood of getting a great fit.

Good luck!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this has been addressed, but if I had a slightly above average kid, I would worry that h/she wouldn't do well at a really academically rigorous/"elite" school. I wouldn't want to set them up to fail.

Elite schools are not synonymous with academically rigorous school. MIT, Caltech, sure but Harvard, Yale or Princeton, not really.

And you know this how?

Because they worship at the altar of almighty STEM. They think everything else is not academically rigorous even though they couldn’t write their way out of a paper bag.

This is not a secret that HYP has grade inflation. DD is a sophomore at one the ivies and so far she finds her classes fairly easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this has been addressed, but if I had a slightly above average kid, I would worry that h/she wouldn't do well at a really academically rigorous/"elite" school. I wouldn't want to set them up to fail.

Elite schools are not synonymous with academically rigorous school. MIT, Caltech, sure but Harvard, Yale or Princeton, not really.

And you know this how?

Because they worship at the altar of almighty STEM. They think everything else is not academically rigorous even though they couldn’t write their way out of a paper bag.

This is not a secret that HYP has grade inflation. DD is a sophomore at one the ivies and so far she finds her classes fairly easy.

meh - my kid is at MIT and doesn't find it appreciably difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:-- $2 million gift (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard)
-- recruited athlete
-- URM with decent grades/scores

I am so tired of this crap about URMs and recruited athletes having it made. My kid is both. College admissions was still stressful and difficult and it didn't help that people would say he "had it easy." He got into a couple of 'elite' schools but turned them down for a school ( and a coach) who cared more about him as a person, not just an athletic asset. And a school where he felt at home and at ease, rather than having to be 'on' all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-- $2 million gift (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard)
-- recruited athlete
-- URM with decent grades/scores

I am so tired of this crap about URMs and recruited athletes having it made. My kid is both. College admissions was still stressful and difficult and it didn't help that people would say he "had it easy." He got into a couple of 'elite' schools but turned them down for a school ( and a coach) who cared more about him as a person, not just an athletic asset. And a school where he felt at home and at ease, rather than having to be 'on' all the time.

It’s factually correct that being a URM recruiter athlete is a tremendous advantage in admissions, whether you like it or not. Glad your child chose a college that was a good fit.....very smart and much more important in the long run then a meaningless ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-- $2 million gift (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard)
-- recruited athlete
-- URM with decent grades/scores

I am so tired of this crap about URMs and recruited athletes having it made. My kid is both. College admissions was still stressful and difficult and it didn't help that people would say he "had it easy." He got into a couple of 'elite' schools but turned them down for a school ( and a coach) who cared more about him as a person, not just an athletic asset. And a school where he felt at home and at ease, rather than having to be 'on' all the time.

It’s factually correct that being a URM recruiter athlete is a tremendous advantage in admissions, whether you like it or not. Glad your child chose a college that was a good fit.....very smart and much more important in the long run then a meaningless ranking.

The thing people forget about recruited athletes is the statement above is like saying “It’s factually correct that being admitted is a tremendous advantage in admissions”. What you neglect is that recruited athletes have already run a different and equally incredibly competitive gamut to get recruited. For every kid recruited to Harvard there are hundreds that tried and failed. It’s just that rat race was run before true actual admissions. (And even then the recruited athlete might not get in as Harvard only accepted 83% of their recruits according to the lawsuit data).

It ain’t the Sunday picnic people think it is. Most fail. Read the book “Recruiting in The Ivy Leauge” and you’ll learn the horror stories. It’s WAY worse for most kids than just getting rejected, and way more expensive and time consuming.

For the record I am not a recruited athlete nor a parent of one. Just interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-- $2 million gift (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard)
-- recruited athlete
-- URM with decent grades/scores

I am so tired of this crap about URMs and recruited athletes having it made. My kid is both. College admissions was still stressful and difficult and it didn't help that people would say he "had it easy." He got into a couple of 'elite' schools but turned them down for a school ( and a coach) who cared more about him as a person, not just an athletic asset. And a school where he felt at home and at ease, rather than having to be 'on' all the time.

So... he got in. You’re not making the point you think you are.

[Anonymous]

Jesus, leave your eighth grader alone before you cause permanent psychological damage.

[Anonymous]

Move to South Dakota. ASAP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:try the advice from this college counselor. Most of it is free and it is very very good. Shirag Shemmassian, Ph.D.

I think some really good advice is to take the obvious hard classes at high school but also follow passions.

great advice is also to think carefully about summers. Use summer to go deeper into whatever their "thing" is in some unique way. internship or volunteer project, etc. be creative and stand out if possible. I have a 9th grader who wants to go to stanford and we joked that she's going to have to save a 1000 puppies one summer. but seriously, something stand out is key to getting college's attention.

another really important thing is to cultivate great recs. colleges are relying more and more on recs as essays become written with help. ideal choices are teachers your student has had for multiple years (language, band, orchestra) or teacher your student has travelled with or had as a club representative. You want someone who can speak to the growth your child has undergone through HS and who genuinely knows their heart.

Last, take rankings with a HUGE grain of salt, They are somewhat meaningless. College is about fit - not ranking. There are phenomenal colleges all over the country - big ones, small ones, northern ones, southern ones, western ones etc. Your child will be happy and thrive at one of them, but going by ranking alone won't increase the likelihood of getting a great fit.

Good luck!!

Incredibly thoughtful post. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-- $2 million gift (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard)
-- recruited athlete
-- URM with decent grades/scores

I am so tired of this crap about URMs and recruited athletes having it made. My kid is both. College admissions was still stressful and difficult and it didn't help that people would say he "had it easy." He got into a couple of 'elite' schools but turned them down for a school ( and a coach) who cared more about him as a person, not just an athletic asset. And a school where he felt at home and at ease, rather than having to be 'on' all the time.

It’s factually correct that being a URM recruiter athlete is a tremendous advantage in admissions, whether you like it or not. Glad your child chose a college that was a good fit.....very smart and much more important in the long run then a meaningless ranking.

The thing people forget about recruited athletes is the statement above is like saying “It’s factually correct that being admitted is a tremendous advantage in admissions”. What you neglect is that recruited athletes have already run a different and equally incredibly competitive gamut to get recruited. For every kid recruited to Harvard there are hundreds that tried and failed. It’s just that rat race was run before true actual admissions. (And even then the recruited athlete might not get in as Harvard only accepted 83% of their recruits according to the lawsuit data).

It ain’t the Sunday picnic people think it is. Most fail. Read the book “Recruiting in The Ivy Leauge” and you’ll learn the horror stories. It’s WAY worse for most kids than just getting rejected, and way more expensive and time consuming.

For the record I am not a recruited athlete nor a parent of one. Just interested.

Yes, but all those kids who tried and failed had a 99.9% better chance of admissions than the kid who wasn't an athlete, but was only brilliant at physics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-- $2 million gift (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard)
-- recruited athlete
-- URM with decent grades/scores

I am so tired of this crap about URMs and recruited athletes having it made. My kid is both. College admissions was still stressful and difficult and it didn't help that people would say he "had it easy." He got into a couple of 'elite' schools but turned them down for a school ( and a coach) who cared more about him as a person, not just an athletic asset. And a school where he felt at home and at ease, rather than having to be 'on' all the time.

It’s factually correct that being a URM recruiter athlete is a tremendous advantage in admissions, whether you like it or not. Glad your child chose a college that was a good fit.....very smart and much more important in the long run then a meaningless ranking.

The thing people forget about recruited athletes is the statement above is like saying “It’s factually correct that being admitted is a tremendous advantage in admissions”. What you neglect is that recruited athletes have already run a different and equally incredibly competitive gamut to get recruited. For every kid recruited to Harvard there are hundreds that tried and failed. It’s just that rat race was run before true actual admissions. (And even then the recruited athlete might not get in as Harvard only accepted 83% of their recruits according to the lawsuit data).

It ain’t the Sunday picnic people think it is. Most fail. Read the book “Recruiting in The Ivy Leauge” and you’ll learn the horror stories. It’s WAY worse for most kids than just getting rejected, and way more expensive and time consuming.

For the record I am not a recruited athlete nor a parent of one. Just interested.

An interesting point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-- $2 million gift (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard)
-- recruited athlete
-- URM with decent grades/scores

I am so tired of this crap about URMs and recruited athletes having it made. My kid is both. College admissions was still stressful and difficult and it didn't help that people would say he "had it easy." He got into a couple of 'elite' schools but turned them down for a school ( and a coach) who cared more about him as a person, not just an athletic asset. And a school where he felt at home and at ease, rather than having to be 'on' all the time.

It’s factually correct that being a URM recruiter athlete is a tremendous advantage in admissions, whether you like it or not. Glad your child chose a college that was a good fit.....very smart and much more important in the long run then a meaningless ranking.

The thing people forget about recruited athletes is the statement above is like saying “It’s factually correct that being admitted is a tremendous advantage in admissions”. What you neglect is that recruited athletes have already run a different and equally incredibly competitive gamut to get recruited. For every kid recruited to Harvard there are hundreds that tried and failed. It’s just that rat race was run before true actual admissions. (And even then the recruited athlete might not get in as Harvard only accepted 83% of their recruits according to the lawsuit data).

It ain’t the Sunday picnic people think it is. Most fail. Read the book “Recruiting in The Ivy Leauge” and you’ll learn the horror stories. It’s WAY worse for most kids than just getting rejected, and way more expensive and time consuming.

For the record I am not a recruited athlete nor a parent of one. Just interested.

Yes, but all those kids who tried and failed had a 99.9% better chance of admissions than the kid who wasn't an athlete, but was only brilliant at physics.

No, they didn't -- that's the point. And they spend thousands of dollars and a great deal of time on the journey. Seriously, read the book, you'll change your mind. It is WAY better to be brilliant at physics. Way, way better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-- $2 million gift (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard)
-- recruited athlete
-- URM with decent grades/scores

I am so tired of this crap about URMs and recruited athletes having it made. My kid is both. College admissions was still stressful and difficult and it didn't help that people would say he "had it easy." He got into a couple of 'elite' schools but turned them down for a school ( and a coach) who cared more about him as a person, not just an athletic asset. And a school where he felt at home and at ease, rather than having to be 'on' all the time.

It’s factually correct that being a URM recruiter athlete is a tremendous advantage in admissions, whether you like it or not. Glad your child chose a college that was a good fit.....very smart and much more important in the long run then a meaningless ranking.

The thing people forget about recruited athletes is the statement above is like saying “It’s factually correct that being admitted is a tremendous advantage in admissions”. What you neglect is that recruited athletes have already run a different and equally incredibly competitive gamut to get recruited. For every kid recruited to Harvard there are hundreds that tried and failed. It’s just that rat race was run before true actual admissions. (And even then the recruited athlete might not get in as Harvard only accepted 83% of their recruits according to the lawsuit data).

It ain’t the Sunday picnic people think it is. Most fail. Read the book “Recruiting in The Ivy Leauge” and you’ll learn the horror stories. It’s WAY worse for most kids than just getting rejected, and way more expensive and time consuming.

For the record I am not a recruited athlete nor a parent of one. Just interested.

Yes, but all those kids who tried and failed had a 99.9% better chance of admissions than the kid who wasn't an athlete, but was only brilliant at physics.

No, they didn't -- that's the point. And they spend thousands of dollars and a great deal of time on the journey. Seriously, read the book, you'll change your mind. It is WAY better to be brilliant at physics. Way, way better.

I get the point the book is making, but another way to look at it is that the athlete runs a single competitive race to become great at their sport and then has an 83% chance of being admitted. The kid who is brilliant at physics runs a race to become brilliant at physics and then at the end that race, has to run another race where only 5% or less of the runners win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-- $2 million gift (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard)
-- recruited athlete
-- URM with decent grades/scores

I am so tired of this crap about URMs and recruited athletes having it made. My kid is both. College admissions was still stressful and difficult and it didn't help that people would say he "had it easy." He got into a couple of 'elite' schools but turned them down for a school ( and a coach) who cared more about him as a person, not just an athletic asset. And a school where he felt at home and at ease, rather than having to be 'on' all the time.

It’s factually correct that being a URM recruiter athlete is a tremendous advantage in admissions, whether you like it or not. Glad your child chose a college that was a good fit.....very smart and much more important in the long run then a meaningless ranking.

The thing people forget about recruited athletes is the statement above is like saying “It’s factually correct that being admitted is a tremendous advantage in admissions”. What you neglect is that recruited athletes have already run a different and equally incredibly competitive gamut to get recruited. For every kid recruited to Harvard there are hundreds that tried and failed. It’s just that rat race was run before true actual admissions. (And even then the recruited athlete might not get in as Harvard only accepted 83% of their recruits according to the lawsuit data).

It ain’t the Sunday picnic people think it is. Most fail. Read the book “Recruiting in The Ivy Leauge” and you’ll learn the horror stories. It’s WAY worse for most kids than just getting rejected, and way more expensive and time consuming.

For the record I am not a recruited athlete nor a parent of one. Just interested.

Yes, but all those kids who tried and failed had a 99.9% better chance of admissions than the kid who wasn't an athlete, but was only brilliant at physics.

No, they didn't -- that's the point. And they spend thousands of dollars and a great deal of time on the journey. Seriously, read the book, you'll change your mind. It is WAY better to be brilliant at physics. Way, way better.

I get the point the book is making, but another way to look at it is that the athlete runs a single competitive race to become great at their sport and then has an 83% chance of being admitted. The kid who is brilliant at physics runs a race to become brilliant at physics and then at the end that race, has to run another race where only 5% or less of the runners win.

Which makes them both about equal, it just depends on where you start counting.

You end up with 95%+ disappointed kids in each race -- except that the athletes are out a lot of time, a lot of money, have possibly been mislead and lied to, and most of the time don't have the strong academic record to get them in somewhere else strong.

You're tracking your competition against those who have already won another qualifying competition. Yes those that have already won that competition have an easier time at admissions -- of course they do.