Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

You could look at the data and realize that Ivies have 10-20% of kids (mostly white kids) who are being admitted because they're legacies, i.e. because they had the luck to be born to a rich alum. But I guess it's more convenient to blame the poor brown kids for being undeserving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

High test score does not equal “intellectual.” Holistic admissions is designed to create an interesting intellectual community. That’s why backgrounds and experiences matter—they are what develop your intellect and your perspectives. And I say this as the parent of one kid with a perfect ACT score and another who struggled on standardized tests; this factor has NO correlation with who they are intellectually and what they bring to a university community.

If your whole life revolves around a “top college” maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities. Life is more than college.

You will only hear “a dime a dozen” to describe a high stats kid here on dcum. In reality there are only a couple thousand these high stats > 1550 in the real world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insane system we have in the US.

ITA. It's opaque and unfair. Publish some minimum stats to apply to tippy top schools.

Ever heard of the Common Data Set?

For the "tippy top schools," start with a 4.0 GPA, 1500+ SAT, and 34+ ACT.

The rest is based on how one packages the rest of the application.

And you will always have many more applicants than slots. It is what it is.

Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

I don't think anyone cares about his opinion of holistic admission. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything.

It is unfortunate for my kid, but life will go on and he will do fine. My 4.0/1570, full pay kid is currently planning to attend a T60. Waitlisted at five schools from T10 to T50. Accepted at safeties. Rejected at nine.

Anonymous wrote:Insane system we have in the US.

ITA. It's opaque and unfair. Publish some minimum stats to apply to tippy top schools.

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

But the numbers ARE the numbers. The kids who score a 1550+ are the top .05%. The point he is making is that these top schools are not taking the BRIGHTEST students. They are taking interesting/compelling/cool/connected students with much lower stats. So the question is: What defines a top school? It's not because your peers will intellectually challenge you. It's something else, but these should no longer be considered the only top "intellectual" institutions. It's just different.

The UK and other countries still find value in assembling classes with the smartest, brightest kids with high IQs so they can handle the work and challenge each other intellectually. Sure the colleges need dancers, trumpet players, etc., but we have to be honest about what these Ivy League institutions have become.

Anonymous wrote:He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

+1 and those 40,000 high test kids are all applying to 10+ super selective schools (if they don't get in somewhere ED).

Insane system we have in the US.

He is wrong. the SAT and GPA are totally inflated from a couple of decades ago so just on the numbers, there are roughly 40,000 test takers scoring 34+/1500+ on the ACT/SAT.

Add to it that schools need enough students for the different majors and departments, so they aren't all going to just take top STEM kids or something. They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

Who asked him? If we wanted to be India we would be.

It’s just 4 years move on. Who cares where you got accepted and rejected?

In his Substack post "College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive," Arjun Panickssery argues that the intense competition for admission to top U.S. universities is not inevitable.

He suggests that factors like affirmative action, legacy preferences, institutional priorities, and athletic recruitment, rather than a vast oversupply of talent, drive the "rat race."

He notes that the top 20 schools enroll about 49,000 students annually (1.3% of high school graduates), and, the talent pool with high SAT scores (e.g., 1550+) isn’t as large as perceived—there are actually not that many "high stat" kids.

He also compares US admissions to admissions abroad and that the colleges abroad make their stats and requirements clear and limit the number of colleges students can apply to which is way less stressful and is rooted in merit not holistic admissions.

https://arjunpanickssery.substack.com/p/college-admissions-doesnt-need-to