Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on guys just do basic math. 3.6 million students graduate each year and 1% of that is 36,000 correct? And that’s nearly double what the ivy league can take each year.

When you consider that top schools take from well beyond the top 1% to fulfill their needs do you realize it’s a simple math problem and rearranging the deck chairs will not suddenly result in no one feeling that they were cheated.

The nirvana you think you seek is only possible if applicants realize that there are more than 20 great colleges in the country and that if they are a top performer, they are likely to get into one.

Do the math, most of them should be able to get in t20 schools though.

I personally think T60 is pretty much great.

But they can’t take just the top 1% academically and fill their classes. They can’t get the musicians artists writers, and yes, athletes if they just take the top one percent which would be overly weighted with students with strong math skills because you can’t score that high without being a polymath.

And for the record, I believe that a large percentage of those kids do make up the top 20. If you look at the stats each school publishes you will see that is the case.

No, there stats they publish do not include all students.

Your tinfoil hat is showing.

They say what percent report scores in the CDS, don't they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on guys just do basic math. 3.6 million students graduate each year and 1% of that is 36,000 correct? And that’s nearly double what the ivy league can take each year.

When you consider that top schools take from well beyond the top 1% to fulfill their needs do you realize it’s a simple math problem and rearranging the deck chairs will not suddenly result in no one feeling that they were cheated.

The nirvana you think you seek is only possible if applicants realize that there are more than 20 great colleges in the country and that if they are a top performer, they are likely to get into one.

Do the math, most of them should be able to get in t20 schools though.

I personally think T60 is pretty much great.

But they can’t take just the top 1% academically and fill their classes. They can’t get the musicians artists writers, and yes, athletes if they just take the top one percent which would be overly weighted with students with strong math skills because you can’t score that high without being a polymath.

And for the record, I believe that a large percentage of those kids do make up the top 20. If you look at the stats each school publishes you will see that is the case.

No, there stats they publish do not include all students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple. Meets ALL of the following criteria

Within the first five ranks in a class size of over 500
Scores of over 1550 SAT or 35 ACT in a single attempt. No super scoring.
Scores 5 in most of the 8 or more AP tests taken
Scores of over 750 in every one of Subject tests if taken

Very likely around 5,000-10,000 max such students in the whole country. So not many You could easily accommodate every one of them in the top ten schools. But then the diversity goals of the schools would be violated, so they are rejected routinely in favor of less academically accomplished students through all kinds of twisted rationalizations.

Very interesting that you assume every high school offers AP classes, has 500 students, ranks its students and proctors AP tests onsite.

Improve your reading comprehension skills and don't make assumption.
While any student who meets these criteria is definitely a 1% student, I never said that if you don't meet these criteria your are not 1%. It would be harder to identify them if objective and standardized criteria is absent, but you can for example have a college give it's own tests to find out.

This is why eliminating more and more objective and standardized measures is just a sneaky way of calling anybody whom you desperately want to admit "qualified", because who then can really dispute your "arbitrary" assertions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple. Meets ALL of the following criteria

Within the first five ranks in a class size of over 500
Scores of over 1550 SAT or 35 ACT in a single attempt. No super scoring.
Scores 5 in most of the 8 or more AP tests taken
Scores of over 750 in every one of Subject tests if taken

Very likely around 5,000-10,000 max such students in the whole country. So not many You could easily accommodate every one of them in the top ten schools. But then the diversity goals of the schools would be violated, so they are rejected routinely in favor of less academically accomplished students through all kinds of twisted rationalizations.

What's the source for this?

PPs ass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple. Meets ALL of the following criteria

Within the first five ranks in a class size of over 500
Scores of over 1550 SAT or 35 ACT in a single attempt. No super scoring.
Scores 5 in most of the 8 or more AP tests taken
Scores of over 750 in every one of Subject tests if taken

Very likely around 5,000-10,000 max such students in the whole country. So not many You could easily accommodate every one of them in the top ten schools. But then the diversity goals of the schools would be violated, so they are rejected routinely in favor of less academically accomplished students through all kinds of twisted rationalizations.

As someone who used to be an academic star in high school back when tutoring wasn't so prevalent, when I read your list, my mind mentally automatically adds up the hours/$$ of tutoring/prep and the parental involvement for most of the kids on your list to achieve those "accomplishments."
Yes, some will have done it naturally. They are the real thing. Others were hoisted there, going past others who may not have had that support. It's a game now and I don't take the things you list at face value anymore.

I agree that this might be one way of measuring the academic 1%-- But do having THE HIGHEST test scores and grades really matter so much more than having VERY HIGH scores plus other achievements/capacities? Colleges are aiming to produce people who will be creative, entrepreneurial, community-involved--most evidence suggests that the threshold approach works--so in terms of creative contributions an IQ of 125 is a good threshold, but you aren't more likely to make valued creative contributions if you have a 145 IQ than a 125 IQ (except perhaps in a few particular areas like PhD level math/physics). So a 1400 SAT or so is probably a good threshold with other indicators of creativity. Similarly entrepreneurs may not have the highest grades but they may have shown a competitive spirit in sports or other competitions or initiative through work experience. As long as they meet the academic threshold needed to succeed academically in a college, they might be more valuable to a school and society than someone who focus all their energies on optimizing test scores. Competitive PhD programs in highly technical areas might do well by selecting the highest scorers, but I'm not convinced that undergraduate programs don't do best by selecting on a wider range of criteria above a given threshold--including some of those high scorers, but also others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on guys just do basic math. 3.6 million students graduate each year and 1% of that is 36,000 correct? And that’s nearly double what the ivy league can take each year.

When you consider that top schools take from well beyond the top 1% to fulfill their needs do you realize it’s a simple math problem and rearranging the deck chairs will not suddenly result in no one feeling that they were cheated.

The nirvana you think you seek is only possible if applicants realize that there are more than 20 great colleges in the country and that if they are a top performer, they are likely to get into one.

Do the math, most of them should be able to get in t20 schools though.

I personally think T60 is pretty much great.

But they can’t take just the top 1% academically and fill their classes. They can’t get the musicians artists writers, and yes, athletes if they just take the top one percent which would be overly weighted with students with strong math skills because you can’t score that high without being a polymath.

And for the record, I believe that a large percentage of those kids do make up the top 20. If you look at the stats each school publishes you will see that is the case.

Once you back out kids in the 1% who can't actually afford those schools, there should be room for those who can

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple. Meets ALL of the following criteria

Within the first five ranks in a class size of over 500
Scores of over 1550 SAT or 35 ACT in a single attempt. No super scoring.
Scores 5 in most of the 8 or more AP tests taken
Scores of over 750 in every one of Subject tests if taken

Very likely around 5,000-10,000 max such students in the whole country. So not many You could easily accommodate every one of them in the top ten schools. But then the diversity goals of the schools would be violated, so they are rejected routinely in favor of less academically accomplished students through all kinds of twisted rationalizations.

As someone who used to be an academic star in high school back when tutoring wasn't so prevalent, when I read your list, my mind mentally automatically adds up the hours/$$ of tutoring/prep and the parental involvement for most of the kids on your list to achieve those "accomplishments."
Yes, some will have done it naturally. They are the real thing. Others were hoisted there, going past others who may not have had that support. It's a game now and I don't take the things you list at face value anymore.

Indeed, how many hours and $$ in private coaches have kids/parents spent for recruited athletes ?

Hey spend your money where you want.
Just don't think that Junior is being cheated because he is a genius and the others who are let in aren't.

Indeed, but parents who spend money on activities and sports to make their kids stand out in college admissions are just as guilty as parents spending money on tutors in terms of trying gaming the system.

I love the confidence of the "Simple" response! I tend to let basic typos go but I would be careful trusting a source saying "Within the first five ranks in..."
Many great schools no longer rank or do the College Board AP $$ holdup and the SAT practices tests were fully terminated in 2021.
Colleges have never simply looked for the most "academically accomplished" students. Making a huge deal about the academic accomplishments of a high school senior is really no different than doing the same thing about a 5th grader who killed it in elementary and did great on the Independent School Entrance Examination. Schools are not seeking out the very best finished academic products when looking at these kids because college is really a new beginning academically (not an end, as some on DCUM seem to think).

Saying we're looking for a trumpeter this year also shouldn't be understood as looking at the best current trumpeter, which I think a lot on DCUM misunderstand. Perceived potential matters. An easier and more visible example of this is athletic recruiting where an top college coach (and admissions) will often prefer an athlete who is slightly slower as a distance swimmer but who has only started swimming longer distances in the last 2 years and hasn't ever had a rigorous club distance training regimen over someone with a better PR but who has been training at the top level for 10 years and has plateaued time wise.

Anonymous wrote:Simple. Meets ALL of the following criteria

Within the first five ranks in a class size of over 500
Scores of over 1550 SAT or 35 ACT in a single attempt. No super scoring.
Scores 5 in most of the 8 or more AP tests taken
Scores of over 750 in every one of Subject tests if taken

Very likely around 5,000-10,000 max such students in the whole country. So not many You could easily accommodate every one of them in the top ten schools. But then the diversity goals of the schools would be violated, so they are rejected routinely in favor of less academically accomplished students through all kinds of twisted rationalizations.

There are not any subject tests anymore and haven't been for several years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on guys just do basic math. 3.6 million students graduate each year and 1% of that is 36,000 correct? And that’s nearly double what the ivy league can take each year.

When you consider that top schools take from well beyond the top 1% to fulfill their needs do you realize it’s a simple math problem and rearranging the deck chairs will not suddenly result in no one feeling that they were cheated.

The nirvana you think you seek is only possible if applicants realize that there are more than 20 great colleges in the country and that if they are a top performer, they are likely to get into one.

Do the math, most of them should be able to get in t20 schools though.

I personally think T60 is pretty much great.

But they can’t take just the top 1% academically and fill their classes. They can’t get the musicians artists writers, and yes, athletes if they just take the top one percent which would be overly weighted with students with strong math skills because you can’t score that high without being a polymath.

And for the record, I believe that a large percentage of those kids do make up the top 20. If you look at the stats each school publishes you will see that is the case.

You said do the math so I did the math. I agree mostly, but the colleges should be more transparent.
For example, If they need musicians playing certain instruments thisyear, say so.
So if I play another instrument, I can save my money and time and effort, apply somewhere else.

You "mostly" agree that 1% of 3.6M is 36K?

What you suggest is both 1) counter to their goals and 2) unworkable to the point of silly.

for 1) They don't want you to not to apply because you don't play the oboe. They want all the applicants possible to pick their class from. This is normal and logical. They have given you more than enough statistics to know that no matter what your scores, you are likely not getting in, so why is it necessary to give you more information to let you know you are likely not getting in?

As for 2), this one is very silly. Why don't you give me a practical example of how they would do that? Reminding you they do it for athletes... would they say "we're only looking for 15 sculptors this year, so don't apply unless you are a top rated sculptor?" HTF would that work? it is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on guys just do basic math. 3.6 million students graduate each year and 1% of that is 36,000 correct? And that’s nearly double what the ivy league can take each year.

When you consider that top schools take from well beyond the top 1% to fulfill their needs do you realize it’s a simple math problem and rearranging the deck chairs will not suddenly result in no one feeling that they were cheated.

The nirvana you think you seek is only possible if applicants realize that there are more than 20 great colleges in the country and that if they are a top performer, they are likely to get into one.

Do the math, most of them should be able to get in t20 schools though.

I personally think T60 is pretty much great.

But they can’t take just the top 1% academically and fill their classes. They can’t get the musicians artists writers, and yes, athletes if they just take the top one percent which would be overly weighted with students with strong math skills because you can’t score that high without being a polymath.

And for the record, I believe that a large percentage of those kids do make up the top 20. If you look at the stats each school publishes you will see that is the case.

You said do the math so I did the math. I agree mostly, but the colleges should be more transparent.
For example, If they need musicians playing certain instruments thisyear, say so.
So if I play another instrument, I can save my money and time and effort, apply somewhere else.

Anonymous wrote:Come on guys just do basic math. 3.6 million students graduate each year and 1% of that is 36,000 correct? And that’s nearly double what the ivy league can take each year.

When you consider that top schools take from well beyond the top 1% to fulfill their needs do you realize it’s a simple math problem and rearranging the deck chairs will not suddenly result in no one feeling that they were cheated.

The nirvana you think you seek is only possible if applicants realize that there are more than 20 great colleges in the country and that if they are a top performer, they are likely to get into one.

This real number (36,000ish) plus the reality that most of us cannot afford the top schools means the t10 admit a mix of kids from the top 10%.

And if anyone has any real data on the percentage of top 1% kids that can go full pay then please, please share it. I don't think it is very many

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple. Meets ALL of the following criteria

Within the first five ranks in a class size of over 500
Scores of over 1550 SAT or 35 ACT in a single attempt. No super scoring.
Scores 5 in most of the 8 or more AP tests taken
Scores of over 750 in every one of Subject tests if taken

Very likely around 5,000-10,000 max such students in the whole country. So not many You could easily accommodate every one of them in the top ten schools. But then the diversity goals of the schools would be violated, so they are rejected routinely in favor of less academically accomplished students through all kinds of twisted rationalizations.

As someone who used to be an academic star in high school back when tutoring wasn't so prevalent, when I read your list, my mind mentally automatically adds up the hours/$$ of tutoring/prep and the parental involvement for most of the kids on your list to achieve those "accomplishments."
Yes, some will have done it naturally. They are the real thing. Others were hoisted there, going past others who may not have had that support. It's a game now and I don't take the things you list at face value anymore.

Indeed, how many hours and $$ in private coaches have kids/parents spent for recruited athletes ?

Hey spend your money where you want.
Just don't think that Junior is being cheated because he is a genius and the others who are let in aren't.

Anonymous wrote:Simple. Meets ALL of the following criteria

Within the first five ranks in a class size of over 500
Scores of over 1550 SAT or 35 ACT in a single attempt. No super scoring.
Scores 5 in most of the 8 or more AP tests taken
Scores of over 750 in every one of Subject tests if taken

Very likely around 5,000-10,000 max such students in the whole country. So not many You could easily accommodate every one of them in the top ten schools. But then the diversity goals of the schools would be violated, so they are rejected routinely in favor of less academically accomplished students through all kinds of twisted rationalizations.

Very interesting that you assume every high school offers AP classes, has 500 students, ranks its students and proctors AP tests onsite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on guys just do basic math. 3.6 million students graduate each year and 1% of that is 36,000 correct? And that’s nearly double what the ivy league can take each year.

When you consider that top schools take from well beyond the top 1% to fulfill their needs do you realize it’s a simple math problem and rearranging the deck chairs will not suddenly result in no one feeling that they were cheated.

The nirvana you think you seek is only possible if applicants realize that there are more than 20 great colleges in the country and that if they are a top performer, they are likely to get into one.

Do the math, most of them should be able to get in t20 schools though.

I personally think T60 is pretty much great.

But they can’t take just the top 1% academically and fill their classes. They can’t get the musicians artists writers, and yes, athletes if they just take the top one percent which would be overly weighted with students with strong math skills because you can’t score that high without being a polymath.

And for the record, I believe that a large percentage of those kids do make up the top 20. If you look at the stats each school publishes you will see that is the case.