Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that offered TO then had to accept a significant number. Leaving fewer spaces for the truly qualified students that usually get the spots.

Test Optional does not mean not qualified. What does truly qualified even mean?

You guys either don't get it or want to find excuses for why your kid got rejected.

TO is the new normal. Get used to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that offered TO then had to accept a significant number. Leaving fewer spaces for the truly qualified students that usually get the spots.

Test Optional does not mean not qualified. What does truly qualified even mean?

You guys either don't get it or want to find excuses for why your kid got rejected.

TO is the new normal. Get used to it.

No, it’s not. MIT switched back and others are following suit

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that offered TO then had to accept a significant number. Leaving fewer spaces for the truly qualified students that usually get the spots.

Test Optional does not mean not qualified. What does truly qualified even mean?

You guys either don't get it or want to find excuses for why your kid got rejected.

TO is the new normal. Get used to it.

No, it’s not. MIT switched back and others are following suit

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that offered TO then had to accept a significant number. Leaving fewer spaces for the truly qualified students that usually get the spots.

Test Optional does not mean not qualified. What does truly qualified even mean?

You guys either don't get it or want to find excuses for why your kid got rejected.

TO is the new normal. Get used to it.

Anonymous wrote:Schools that offered TO then had to accept a significant number. Leaving fewer spaces for the truly qualified students that usually get the spots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't any tougher than any of the other years - Mom of 4.

Yes, it was. The statistics quite irrefutably show it was. My senior landed well but I look around and many did not.

- Mom of 6 (not really but see how that works?)

Again - with the “same as every other year” people. Schools made TO a reality - this alone changed the landscape of application pool. That is not an opinion it is a fact. The push to elevate non academic criteria is also a fact. And finally - COVID - no in person schools and resulting grade inflation also is a fact.

Test optional is a change but the effect is unknown. The expansion of the applicant pool probably makes a difference but the pool has been expanding most years. The question is whether the magnitude of the expansion matters. Probably but hard to tell two weeks after decisions were released. Great qualified kids have always failed to get into schools. Is it really more this year?

Elevation of non academic criteria happened just this past year? Really? You’re going to argue that?

Where is the data supporting your fact that grade inflation resulted from the pandemic?

DP. Applications at the top 56 colleges rose by 25% this year. That’s definitely significant. In the past, it would be unlikely that there were 25% more kids that had the test scores to be competitive. Test optional removed that as a constraint. From the numbers I’ve seen so far, the kids who submitted tests were admitted at an only a slightly higher rate than kids that did not. It was definitely a factor.

+1. That TO resulted in a sea of applications is well documented. I don’t know where PP can possible get evidence that the impact is “unknown”. Every elite school received and documented a surge in applications.

You don’t know how many applicants were actually test optional. You don’t know how many test optional applications were accepted. So I think the actual impact is and will remain unknown. It’s all speculation right now.

Many schools have released this information. Overall, I’ve seen reported that 50% of apps were test optional (a bit down from 55% last year). I don’t have time to do a comprehensive study, but most competitive schools I’ve seen have reported TO apps of anywhere from 35-50% and acceptances of test optional students around 10-15% lower than the number who applied. UVA, e.g., was 42/26%. So, it is a significant number. Everywhere I’ve seen that has reported the number, TO apps are greater than the 25% increase in applications and were admitted at only a slightly lower rate than those who submitted scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't any tougher than any of the other years - Mom of 4.

Yes, it was. The statistics quite irrefutably show it was. My senior landed well but I look around and many did not.

- Mom of 6 (not really but see how that works?)

Again - with the “same as every other year” people. Schools made TO a reality - this alone changed the landscape of application pool. That is not an opinion it is a fact. The push to elevate non academic criteria is also a fact. And finally - COVID - no in person schools and resulting grade inflation also is a fact.

Test optional is a change but the effect is unknown. The expansion of the applicant pool probably makes a difference but the pool has been expanding most years. The question is whether the magnitude of the expansion matters. Probably but hard to tell two weeks after decisions were released. Great qualified kids have always failed to get into schools. Is it really more this year?

Elevation of non academic criteria happened just this past year? Really? You’re going to argue that?

Where is the data supporting your fact that grade inflation resulted from the pandemic?

DP. Applications at the top 56 colleges rose by 25% this year. That’s definitely significant. In the past, it would be unlikely that there were 25% more kids that had the test scores to be competitive. Test optional removed that as a constraint. From the numbers I’ve seen so far, the kids who submitted tests were admitted at an only a slightly higher rate than kids that did not. It was definitely a factor.

+1. That TO resulted in a sea of applications is well documented. I don’t know where PP can possible get evidence that the impact is “unknown”. Every elite school received and documented a surge in applications.

You don’t know how many applicants were actually test optional. You don’t know how many test optional applications were accepted. So I think the actual impact is and will remain unknown. It’s all speculation right now.

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:
The ivies + s + mit are going to eventually be 50+ international students

Even if you take away the fact that academically these international students are light years ahead of US students, they are all full pay and often with considerable donations

Where are you getting this? Harvard has the same financial aid process for international and domestic students. Brown plans to move to need-blind admissions for international students with the class of 2029.

The need based admissions for international students will be from URM equivalent places and will not be in lieu of the financial source nations

So what does this mean?

Those that are seeking financial aid will be competing for a shrinking pot + those that are providing the financial source will have increasingly greater influence + demand from these colleges

People often forget that the elite colleges operate their institutions much like successful business and hence why some of these ivies have greater wealth than most countries in the world (compare endowments compared to a country's foreign reserves).

Harvard which has about 22k students has an endowment (again sourced from full pay + donations) is $53 billion which is about the same as the foreign reserves of Sweden or Netherlands and greater than any Latin American or South American nation except Brazil and Mexico

That is just one country, Yale is $42 billion, Stanford $38 billion, Princeton $38 billion

This endowment comes from tuition, donors and managed by investment managers, so full pay + donation student is inherently of greater value than somebody that is clamoring for financial aid

This is gibberish.

This is why you got rejected from ivies or if you did attend are probably not donating back a meaningful amount, you think you are playing checkers but the game is actually chess

t. family + extended family 31 ivy grads and yes we were full pay + donate

And this proves that the least qualified attendees of an Ivy League school are the donor kids.

Every male in family scored over 1500+ on sat to include back in the day before score readjustments, most of the females too

All of us graduated top 2% in competitive high schools that ranks kids, 2 valedictorians, 3 salutatorians

7 were all-state athletes to include 3 in "real" male competitive sports and D1 athletes, 1 was an all-american

3 class presidents, 7 vice presidents

And 0 of these people actually existed

Its very difficult for somebody like you to understand but the ivies are filled with people just like this, 99%+ are exceptional and literally only the "best" get offers of admission

Every year in every generation the top kids go to ivies + s + mit, its the same story, if you are truly in the top 1% in criteria that the elites care about you are going to be offered admissions to ivies, its actually a very fair and straightforward process but it stings to those sitting outside of that top 1%

Walk around any of the ivies on any given day, there are thousands of students that fill this criteria and believe it or not they all deserved to be there

To be honest, as an ivy grad, I'm actually surprised there is not a backlash against the ivies because of this inherent elitism, so if a kid is say top 2% or 3% do they suck? No, but its an unspoken acceptance by those on the inside that those on the outside are somehow less than those on the inside and this becomes more of a thing the more careers advance to say public company CEOs, private equity partners, top 10 law partners, top 5 investment banks, etc...

Lol. So you are saying that Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Brett Kavanaugh etc.. all were top 1% and deserved to be there because of that? No other reason ??hmmm..

Absolutely yes, they are not only top 1% but probably the top 1% of the top 1%.

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Brett Kavanaugh, but to claim they are not among the elites in terms of success if more delusional than the flat earthers.

Again, the common theme is exceptionalism.

Donald Trump: multi-billionaire, hyper-charismatic to a certain demographic large enough the become the President of the US
Jared Kushner: multi-billionaire from a family even wealthier than Donald Trump, deals in high level real estate transactions that would be as confusing to most dcurbaners than trying to decipher hieroglyphics
Brett Kavanaugh: considered among the elite jurist within the law community, probably among the most constitutionalist justices with a deeper understanding of the constitution than most of the other justices let alone other lawyers, again not a fan

Just because you don't like them does not mean their are not elite talent, in fact, I would go as far as to say that because somebody like you does not like them is probably indicative of them being an elite talent

Of course they are elite. But they were not in the top 1% of their class when they got into an Ivy. Hence the point. Ivies are not picking the top 1%.

Of course, they're picking the top .001% The vast majority of students understand that applying to Harvard is a waste of an application fee. The top 1% is something like a large state flagship