Anonymous wrote:Harvard/Stanford or bust. the rest are for dumb losers...

Jokes Aside, As a parent who will most probably have to pay full price for a kid to attend a private school, my spouse and I have decided not to give money to schools that are rated poorly for "fostering diversity of viewpoints" and "valuing freedom of speech". We have been following how the elite schools handle these issues based on the controversies on campus and have pretty much eliminated HYPS from the mix of schools that our child will apply to. There are too many good schools in the mix to let our money go to administrations that have policies that we seriously disagree with.

Harvard's administration seems to be specially egregious in this respect.

Anonymous wrote:Northwestern isn't an Ivy-equivalent. Carry on

Neither is Duke.

Harvard/Stanford or bust. the rest are for dumb losers...

mostly luck, and it is honestly not a big deal in the long term whether you end up at HYPS or another ivy or ivy-equivalent (I hate when people use the word lower to refer to the other elites). The only difference it will make is to really boost your ego because average people and extended family members will instantly be impressed by HYPS. Why does this even matter really?

The elite boarding and prep school crowd that frequents forums like this and CC have a HYPS or bust mentality which is frankly pointless and unhealthy. Sure try for HYPS, but it is absurd to feel insecure if you don't make it there but instead make it to one of the other elite schools. I get that super-competitive and ambitious people find it hard not to get their top choice(s) but this is life. You need to keep things in perspective and realize how lucky you are to be attending an ivy or similarly elite school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do think that it is down to luck for the non-prodigies. HYPS receives thousands of applications from non-prodigious kids with amazing grades, scores and great ECs. Who gets in from this pool is kind of arbitrary.

I was a Harvard undergrad and a Penn grad student who had to work a lot with undergrads ( was a TA). What I observed was that the top 15% or so at Harvard was markedly stronger because it consisted of the really extraordinary students and prodigies who tend to flock to Harvard to a much greater degree than Penn. Such students also existed at Penn but at much smaller numbers. However once you got past the very top I didn't notice any significant difference between the middle 50% of the student body at Harvard compared to the middle 50% at Penn.

Of course the interesting question here is whether the top 15% in college were the kids that looked like prodigies at the applicant stage. I was certainly in the former category and probably not in the latter (at least based on the indicators DCUM focuses on — standardized test scores and national/international competitions).

in my experience the kind of kid who was a math olympiad champion ended up effortlessly in the top 10% or so of the class at Harvard. It was quite frustrating to watch the prodigies just glide through, barely breaking a sweat lol.

The vast majority of students at Harvard or any of the other <10% admission colleges are NOT prodigies. My DC got in to one of those schools early this year, but DC is very normal teenage humanities/social science student - certainly not a Big Bang Theory type. DC got all As and A-s with 1550+ SATs and all 5s on the APs, (like 20,000 other kids) but DC did not take all of the hardest classes at his school. I think what mattered was that DC is an influential personality with peers and the teachers/administrators consider him to be extremely thoughtful and articulate. They tell us he stands out in ways that we don't see while nagging about curfew and cleaning up his room.

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do think that it is down to luck for the non-prodigies. HYPS receives thousands of applications from non-prodigious kids with amazing grades, scores and great ECs. Who gets in from this pool is kind of arbitrary.

I was a Harvard undergrad and a Penn grad student who had to work a lot with undergrads ( was a TA). What I observed was that the top 15% or so at Harvard was markedly stronger because it consisted of the really extraordinary students and prodigies who tend to flock to Harvard to a much greater degree than Penn. Such students also existed at Penn but at much smaller numbers. However once you got past the very top I didn't notice any significant difference between the middle 50% of the student body at Harvard compared to the middle 50% at Penn.

Of course the interesting question here is whether the top 15% in college were the kids that looked like prodigies at the applicant stage. I was certainly in the former category and probably not in the latter (at least based on the indicators DCUM focuses on — standardized test scores and national/international competitions).

I honestly do think that it is down to luck for the non-prodigies. HYPS receives thousands of applications from non-prodigious kids with amazing grades, scores and great ECs. Who gets in from this pool is kind of arbitrary.

I was a Harvard undergrad and a Penn grad student who had to work a lot with undergrads ( was a TA). What I observed was that the top 15% or so at Harvard was markedly stronger because it consisted of the really extraordinary students and prodigies who tend to flock to Harvard to a much greater degree than Penn. Such students also existed at Penn but at much smaller numbers. However once you got past the very top I didn't notice any significant difference between the middle 50% of the student body at Harvard compared to the middle 50% at Penn.

Debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that interesting can make a big difference (then as well as now) — especially for unhooked kids. But it has to be manifest from the application (essays, recs, activities)* and it’s surprisingly rare.

*i.e. interviewers will probably notice it, but the fact that they do or don’t has no bearing on admissions decisions.

I agree that the final interview is marginal, but it would have come through in the other components as well, like teacher recommendations and essays.

+1 - self assurance / confidence and how it appears in all its forms, makes a candidate that much more appealing than those who lack it.

My DC was admitted this year to HYPS. I think the above makes sense and applied in DC's case. I also think a big factor was a lot of evidence that DC would likely bring a lot of positive energy to the college and really be involved. But, I could be wrong and maybe it was something else entirely.

DD got in unhooked. I agree that self-confidence is key. She was on lots of local government boards, etc. as a "youth representative" and so got very comfortable talking to adults. She also went to Burgundy Farm through 8th grade. I think Burgundy taught her to have faith in her own ideas and to (thoughtfully and respectfully) converse with adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that interesting can make a big difference (then as well as now) — especially for unhooked kids. But it has to be manifest from the application (essays, recs, activities)* and it’s surprisingly rare.

*i.e. interviewers will probably notice it, but the fact that they do or don’t has no bearing on admissions decisions.

I agree that the final interview is marginal, but it would have come through in the other components as well, like teacher recommendations and essays.

+1 - self assurance / confidence and how it appears in all its forms, makes a candidate that much more appealing than those who lack it.

Anonymous wrote:Agree that interesting can make a big difference (then as well as now) — especially for unhooked kids. But it has to be manifest from the application (essays, recs, activities)* and it’s surprisingly rare.

*i.e. interviewers will probably notice it, but the fact that they do or don’t has no bearing on admissions decisions.

I agree that the final interview is marginal, but it would have come through in the other components as well, like teacher recommendations and essays.

Agree that interesting can make a big difference (then as well as now) — especially for unhooked kids. But it has to be manifest from the application (essays, recs, activities)* and it’s surprisingly rare.

*i.e. interviewers will probably notice it, but the fact that they do or don’t has no bearing on admissions decisions.

Anonymous wrote:As an unhooked kid who went to Harvard, what struck me most was the self-confidence (often way out of proportion to skills/talent/knowledge) and ambition of my classmates.

I interview for one of them, and I agree, especially about the self-confidence, although it was more self-assurance. When I interview, I am happy when I think “oh good, this kid is interesting!” I’ve never had one get in that I hadn’t thought that about. But I found that it does go along with skills and talents - maybe that’s just a Harvard thing.