OP here - I can't see transcripts and scores so all I get is anecdotal stuff, but I'm seeing 3 sport athletes and URMs from strong local prep schools, TJ, etc. I think the worst case scenario is a kid with scores in the 90th percentile or with a B+ average. I've had one kid wait listed. It's depressing. I've really loved a couple too. Incredible kids with really interesting stories...

Seems like (based on the series of events at the school) if you are an alcoholic you'd have a very good shot at gaining entry.

DS is a junior at Dartmouth. He had terrific scores and grades, wrote a good essay and had leadership positions in his extra-curricular activities and sports. I know he had a good alumni interview, too. Another girl from his school was admitted the following year. Neither were recruited for sports.


He is also the least boring person I know and we are NOT wealthy or alumnus of Dartmouth.

A lot of sour grapes on this thread.

Boring

The kid I know who went to Dartmouth this year didn't fit any of those criteria (ED, URM, recruited athlete -- not a legacy either). Private school, STEM (strong academics but no national awards), well-rounded, fun.

I interviewed for 5 years for an HYP in this area and quit because the applicants were so borino.

Meant to add that 9 of my 12 years have been in NoVa and DC.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone enlighten me? I've been interviewing for 2 years now and haven't had a single kid get in. They all seem amazing - what does it take to get in these days??? Is it just truly exceptional kids or connected kids or are my interviewees exaggerating their grades/scores (which I don't get to see)?

I've been interviewing for 12 years. I've had 6 students admitted over that time. My last admit was last year. That student applied early, I'm assuming had the scores, had fantastic leadership, and a really unique way the student spent the summer after junior year which I'm sure was the focus of the student's essay. The student was also super easy to talk to about a wide range of subject. I actually wrote in my report that the student reminded me a lot of myself at that age and would have been someone I would have wanted as a friend and classmate while at Dartmouth. No "hooks." Not a legacy, not a recruited athlete, not an URM.

Prior to that I've had two recruited athletes admitted, none of the legacies, and two URMs admitted. Of those, the athletes were always ED. I had one other non hooked student admitted back in 2005. This year I interviewed a stellar candidate RD with a couple hooks URM and first college attendee in the family and I was very surprised the student wasn't admitted.

So in my experience you need to be an ED recruited athlete, a highly desirable URM or if you have no hooks, commit ED.

Right, the easy way in to Dartmouth is to have grades and test scores better than 60% of the admitted class AND play a sport really well. So if I should tell my son to become a Westinghouse Finalist and be a high school All-American left tackle so he'll have an easy time getting into Harvard. That should be a snap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:get recruited for a sport while being 60th percentile student atleast on scores and grades.

forget all the other window dressing.

Read up on the Academic Index used by the Ivy League. The minimum index of 176 required by the League is well above the 60th percentile. The lowest academically qualified recruited athlete at an Ivy has better GPA and test scores than the top 25% of admits at most Division 1 schools.

I meant 60th percentile within a given schools' class. This varies from school to school. You are comparing across scores. I'm telling future D applicants, to get recruited by a Dartmouth intercollegiate team and fall at the 60th percentile level of Dartmouth's class profile and you will get in.

the median recruited athlete scores are not at the 60th percentile of their income class at their own institution.

For Dartmouth I would say that there is a disproportionate number of recruited athletes legacy and money- there is not always a direct correspondence to grades and scores

Anonymous wrote:get recruited for a sport while being 60th percentile student atleast on scores and grades.

forget all the other window dressing.

Read up on the Academic Index used by the Ivy League. The minimum index of 176 required by the League is well above the 60th percentile. The lowest academically qualified recruited athlete at an Ivy has better GPA and test scores than the top 25% of admits at most Division 1 schools.

I've been interviewing for over 20 years now at another Ivy that has seen its admit rate shrink to single digits. However, the profile of admitted students hasn't really changed that much. The SAT scores bumped up when they reentered in 1995. While weighted GPA have risen, unweighted GPA hasn't. So grades have mostly changed because of AP/IB/honors designations. The STEM students are a little more likely to take post-calculus math. The big difference is that we are getting applicants from every single school in the country and tons of students who don't have a chance are tossing another file on the pile because "you never know."

get recruited for a sport while being 60th percentile student atleast on scores and grades.

forget all the other window dressing.

Interviewer for another Ivy here. I've had 5 admits in almost 20 years. The only thing I can conclude is that the interview is useful at the margin, but academic performance is paramount. In other words, exactly what the schools themselves say they look at.

I always ask my candidates to redact grades and standardized tests from their resumes, if they prepared one. If you do something like this you won't know which strong interview is weak elsewhere, or the reverse.

The admissions-industrial complex won't agree with me. But there isn't any money in advising kids to go back to 8th/9th grade and study more.

Can someone enlighten me? I've been interviewing for 2 years now and haven't had a single kid get in. They all seem amazing - what does it take to get in these days??? Is it just truly exceptional kids or connected kids or are my interviewees exaggerating their grades/scores (which I don't get to see)?