Santa Clara
Hamilton

Anonymous wrote:None. I don't think about this stuff at all. My kid is at community college and working.

Nice.

the book on colleges from the late 80s was Barons

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the early 90s multiple mid to lower tier students at my private went to USC, Vandy, BC, BU and UCSB. Six kids from my class went to Stanford, different times for sure.

I got into 4 ivies and Stanford in the late 90s. If you knew me, that would tell you everything you need to know about the changing landscape for admissions.

Likewise. I was admitted to MIT RD with a 1440 and was only in the top 5-10% of my class. A good student, but not exceptional. More surprisingly, Carnegie Mellon -- a school to which I had not applied -- called me (I was a NMSF) and over the phone offered me admission plus merit money (IIRC it was $5-7K.) I said I had to think about it and they called me again the next day.

My sister went to Vanderbilt because she was the lazy one in our family. I think she got around 1100 on her SAT's?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT was different in the 80s. Harder. You rarely heard people hitting 1400+ SAT.

I remember 1200-1300 was a solid SAT score in the 80s (put you in play anywhere). So the score report doesn't mean much...BUT--yes it is much more selective everywhere due to common app, number of applicants (not as many people went onto 4-year colleges), holistic approach and test optional.

I don’t think it was necessarily harder but the verbal section was more difficult to prep for if you didn’t have the vocabulary. It’s almost as if the college board intentionally created something that would align with test prep and test cram type services.

Vocabulary section was much more intense in the 80s. You really had to be a huge reader to do well.

You would be punctilious in making this observation.

NYU
Usc
Florida
Uc’s
Northeastern
BU

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulane. It used to be an expensive party school for rich kids.

I would say it's competitiveness has remained fairly consistent.

No way. Lots of rich idiots from my HS went there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan.

I graduated college in early 2000s

I had a 3.8, 2 AP classes, 32 ACT, was on one varsity sport (not captain). That’s it. I was in-state, but still. No way would I get in today.

Similar story, but UVA. Had a 3.75, 1390 SAT, had a number of ECs. But 100% not get into UVA with that profile now.

But take that with a grain of salt. There has been massive high school grade inflation and a recentering upward of standardized test scores. Plus, test optional is now an option.

+1. Too often, kids are ad.itted to college who should be in a vocational program.

Anonymous wrote:Everything was easier including Ivies back in the day.

I also feel like less people in my Ffx Co HS shot that high back then. Most stayed in state. My parents only allowed for us to apply in-state. I had a friend go to a T10--only child, but it wasn't as common.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the early 90s multiple mid to lower tier students at my private went to USC, Vandy, BC, BU and UCSB. Six kids from my class went to Stanford, different times for sure.

I got into 4 ivies and Stanford in the late 90s. If you knew me, that would tell you everything you need to know about the changing landscape for admissions.

Likewise. I was admitted to MIT RD with a 1440 and was only in the top 5-10% of my class. A good student, but not exceptional. More surprisingly, Carnegie Mellon -- a school to which I had not applied -- called me (I was a NMSF) and over the phone offered me admission plus merit money (IIRC it was $5-7K.) I said I had to think about it and they called me again the next day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT was different in the 80s. Harder. You rarely heard people hitting 1400+ SAT.

I remember 1200-1300 was a solid SAT score in the 80s (put you in play anywhere). So the score report doesn't mean much...BUT--yes it is much more selective everywhere due to common app, number of applicants (not as many people went onto 4-year colleges), holistic approach and test optional.

I don’t think it was necessarily harder but the verbal section was more difficult to prep for if you didn’t have the vocabulary. It’s almost as if the college board intentionally created something that would align with test prep and test cram type services.

Vocabulary section was much more intense in the 80s. You really had to be a huge reader to do well.

+1 for sure

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT was different in the 80s. Harder. You rarely heard people hitting 1400+ SAT.

I remember 1200-1300 was a solid SAT score in the 80s (put you in play anywhere). So the score report doesn't mean much...BUT--yes it is much more selective everywhere due to common app, number of applicants (not as many people went onto 4-year colleges), holistic approach and test optional.

I don’t think it was necessarily harder but the verbal section was more difficult to prep for if you didn’t have the vocabulary. It’s almost as if the college board intentionally created something that would align with test prep and test cram type services.

They did make it easier and curved the norms downward to be more inclusive to those who didn't perform well on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT was different in the 80s. Harder. You rarely heard people hitting 1400+ SAT.

I remember 1200-1300 was a solid SAT score in the 80s (put you in play anywhere). So the score report doesn't mean much...BUT--yes it is much more selective everywhere due to common app, number of applicants (not as many people went onto 4-year colleges), holistic approach and test optional.

I don’t think it was necessarily harder but the verbal section was more difficult to prep for if you didn’t have the vocabulary. It’s almost as if the college board intentionally created something that would align with test prep and test cram type services.

Vocabulary section was much more intense in the 80s. You really had to be a huge reader to do well.

I used UMCP as my safety, coming out of RMIB 20 years ago. Would never in a million years do that now. I had a 3.8/1510, so probably would have still been OK today, but definitely would never have counted on it as a safety with the way it is now. That would have been extremely arrogant, and maybe it was at the time, too.

The desirability of SEC schools is a surprise to me. Or state flagships in general. My own parents categorically refused to pay for an out-of-state public and said that if they were going to pay for college, it would be at a prestigious private university or an SLAC where their money would buy smaller classes and more professor attention. Michigan or UCLA/Berkeley? Nope. It was very snobby and and would not work as a strategy nowadays with how crazy competitive and expensive everything has gotten.

Nowadays I'd probably end up at College Park as a target.

Anonymous wrote:In the early 90s multiple mid to lower tier students at my private went to USC, Vandy, BC, BU and UCSB. Six kids from my class went to Stanford, different times for sure.

I got into 4 ivies and Stanford in the late 90s. If you knew me, that would tell you everything you need to know about the changing landscape for admissions.