Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew that there were parents who let their kids apply to schools without looking into the cost. Then, the kid gets in and they realize they can't afford it. The kid is crushed and has to go elsewhere.

I knew that happens but I just didn't think that those parents would include some people I know and respect.

Where and where? I personally would not judge good financial decisions…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooks matter more than anything else at the top 20 schools, and especially the Ivies. A kid at the top of the class, with perfect grades and scores and impressive, unique ECs, will almost always lose out to a kid without those things who has a hook. I heard this so many times but did not fully absorb it without personal experience.

This is a false but common narrative on DCUM. Unhooked candidates do not lose out to "less qualified" hooked candidates. They lose out to other academically qualified candidates who align with an institutional priority.

Families refuse to accept that the top schools don't really care about 'peak academics'. Once an academic bar has been reached they care about their priorities which means that 4.0UW with a 1590 isn't any more interesting than 3.95UW with a 1540 in their admissions process. And they are correct, in real life those kids are academically indistinguishable.

An “institutional priority,” as you describe it, is a “hook.” You are therefore talking in circles.

I am not, you are thinking narrowly.

"Hooks" are institutional priorities but they are typically known things and merely a subset. You'll never really know most institutional priorities in any given year outside of the common ALDC ones that you are thinking of. You won't know that they want a kid from North Dakota, that they need an Oboe player, that the gender ratio isn't quite where they want it to be, that they are looking to add more kids into a major because they received and endowed gift for a sponsored professor, or that their new science center's expanded capacity means that they can be less selective for Chem majors this year, etc.
Institutional priorities aren't often known, can and do change year by year and are big driver of acceptances behind the scenes. They are wildcards.

Yes, but you are the one saying that, when people say “hooks,” they are really talking about institutional priorities. Some are, but most are not. Since that is the case, I see you as muddying the water.

Hooks are first gen/pell grant, very rare geographical places, legacy+ (legacy alone does not cut it anymore), faculty kids, recruited athletes (way more than a hook), semi-recruited athletes (“we think you will walk on” but sent word to admissions), VIPs/very connected people (especially in DC)/huge potential donors. That’s just about “it.” But that’s often well over 50% of a class, and well over 80% of those kids who get into top schools from certain metro private high schools.

So when a parent says that so and so got in because of one of those hooks, they know exactly what they are talking about and who these kids are, particularly at private high schools. To me, that happens far more than conflating a humanities kid as a “hook.”

ALDC is athletics, legacy, development, and Children of faculty staff which covers almost everything that you mentioned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Anonymous wrote:I knew that there were parents who let their kids apply to schools without looking into the cost. Then, the kid gets in and they realize they can't afford it. The kid is crushed and has to go elsewhere.

I knew that happens but I just didn't think that those parents would include some people I know and respect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooks matter more than anything else at the top 20 schools, and especially the Ivies. A kid at the top of the class, with perfect grades and scores and impressive, unique ECs, will almost always lose out to a kid without those things who has a hook. I heard this so many times but did not fully absorb it without personal experience.

This is a false but common narrative on DCUM. Unhooked candidates do not lose out to "less qualified" hooked candidates. They lose out to other academically qualified candidates who align with an institutional priority.

Families refuse to accept that the top schools don't really care about 'peak academics'. Once an academic bar has been reached they care about their priorities which means that 4.0UW with a 1590 isn't any more interesting than 3.95UW with a 1540 in their admissions process. And they are correct, in real life those kids are academically indistinguishable.

An “institutional priority,” as you describe it, is a “hook.” You are therefore talking in circles.

I am not, you are thinking narrowly.

"Hooks" are institutional priorities but they are typically known things and merely a subset. You'll never really know most institutional priorities in any given year outside of the common ALDC ones that you are thinking of. You won't know that they want a kid from North Dakota, that they need an Oboe player, that the gender ratio isn't quite where they want it to be, that they are looking to add more kids into a major because they received and endowed gift for a sponsored professor, or that their new science center's expanded capacity means that they can be less selective for Chem majors this year, etc.
Institutional priorities aren't often known, can and do change year by year and are big driver of acceptances behind the scenes. They are wildcards.

Yes, but you are the one saying that, when people say “hooks,” they are really talking about institutional priorities. Some are, but most are not. Since that is the case, I see you as muddying the water.

Hooks are first gen/pell grant, very rare geographical places, legacy+ (legacy alone does not cut it anymore), faculty kids, recruited athletes (way more than a hook), semi-recruited athletes (“we think you will walk on” but sent word to admissions), VIPs/very connected people (especially in DC)/huge potential donors. That’s just about “it.” But that’s often well over 50% of a class, and well over 80% of those kids who get into top schools from certain metro private high schools.

So when a parent says that so and so got in because of one of those hooks, they know exactly what they are talking about and who these kids are, particularly at private high schools. To me, that happens far more than conflating a humanities kid as a “hook.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooks matter more than anything else at the top 20 schools, and especially the Ivies. A kid at the top of the class, with perfect grades and scores and impressive, unique ECs, will almost always lose out to a kid without those things who has a hook. I heard this so many times but did not fully absorb it without personal experience.

This is a false but common narrative on DCUM. Unhooked candidates do not lose out to "less qualified" hooked candidates. They lose out to other academically qualified candidates who align with an institutional priority.

Families refuse to accept that the top schools don't really care about 'peak academics'. Once an academic bar has been reached they care about their priorities which means that 4.0UW with a 1590 isn't any more interesting than 3.95UW with a 1540 in their admissions process. And they are correct, in real life those kids are academically indistinguishable.

An “institutional priority,” as you describe it, is a “hook.” You are therefore talking in circles.

I am not, you are thinking narrowly.

"Hooks" are institutional priorities but they are typically known things and merely a subset. You'll never really know most institutional priorities in any given year outside of the common ALDC ones that you are thinking of. You won't know that they want a kid from North Dakota, that they need an Oboe player, that the gender ratio isn't quite where they want it to be, that they are looking to add more kids into a major because they received and endowed gift for a sponsored professor, or that their new science center's expanded capacity means that they can be less selective for Chem majors this year, etc.
Institutional priorities aren't often known, can and do change year by year and are big driver of acceptances behind the scenes. They are wildcards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Anonymous wrote:Normal teenage summer jobs like scooping ice cream, waiting tables, bagging groceries have taken a backseat to formal summer programs, summer research, pre-professional internships, etc.

Anonymous wrote:We thought she made a really safe choice for ED and still got deferred, which I'm pretty sure will turn into a rejection.

It's more competitive than I ever even allowed myself to think. And I was pretty well informed.

I understand why so many kids apply early to and easy admit school and just call it a day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

I wonder how the new anti-DEI reality will filter down to women's sports in college. Women's sports are not big money and alumnae tend not to be big donors to their old schools/ teams as men. Will women athletes continue to get the same thumb on the scale in applications?