Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see the jock sniffers come out of the woodwork to defend athletic recruiting.

All of your wonderful pronouncements and stories aside, the Harvard data analysis led to the conclusion that on average, admitted athletes had lower academic qualifications than the average applicant, that an academic profile that for a non-athlete yielded a sub 1% acceptance rate yielded a 85%+ acceptance rate for recruited athletes and, again, that 90% of athletes would not have been admitted on their academic qualifications. but sure, tell me again how athletes are equally qualified. it's not for nothing that the into to geology course at Harvard was called "rocks for jocks".

The argument that athletes bring something else to the table is an old one. That's a value judgment that you're making, and it's fine. But you should realize that then that justifies the colleges making other value judgments, such as the value of diversity.
As for the future success argument, that's simply not proven, and if you substituted all of the recruited athletes were better qualified students, maybe you'd do even better.

I would wager the vast majority of people who donate to Harvard or Yale or Cornell are not doing so for sports. This isn't USC. Have you ever seen the attendance at a Harvard men's soccer game? You could probably count the spectators on your hands. No one cares.

in the end, you all want to defend the hooks that benefit you or fit your particular worldview. but let's not be hypocrites about it. A hook is a hook and no one is more justifiable than the other.

Well said!

I disagree that all hooks are the same. Whatever one might personally think about whether the emphasis on athletics is good or bad, the combination of work and talent to be a D-1 athlete is something that the applicant actually achieved himself/herself based on merit. In contrast, URM status on the one end and legacy status on the other hand are attributes that applicants are born with and have nothing to do with merit. That’s the major difference - people can quibble about the value of sports, but ultimately, being a top athlete is still a merit-based achievement with largely objective standards in the same manner as academic achievements. As a result, that is very different from a hook that is based on an attribute from birth as opposed to merit.

One kid likes skating, spends 4 hours a day on that, another kid likes playing violin 4 hours a day, the third kid likes playing video games 4 hours a day and is actually pretty good at it. Why should any of these be relevant to college admissions?

Anonymous wrote:Any guestimates of GPA 4.3 being in top 25% of the class?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes don’t bring anything to the table that a talented musician, performer, inventor or businessperson also brings. Why special elite slots for them should be reserved to fill teams boggles my mind. Make all the sports club sports with no recruiting value other than an EC.

The intangibles that successful student athletes possess usually leads to these same kids succeeding and excelling in business, they are highly sought after by the most discriminating of employers to include and particularly wall street.

When I was at an elite group within a T3 investment bank I remember every recruiting season HR would drop a resume book of literally hundreds of resumes from a handful of school and asked for me to pick out some. When every resume is harvard, penn, columbia, etc. I looked for differentiating factors and athletics was among the top criteria I used. But more importantly, when it came to actually speaking with these candidates it was night - day in terms of how much better they were put together/polished from an effective communication perspective.

Yep. I am friends with and family members of some really, really, really smart people that also happened to be D1 athletes in their sport. These people were in the top of their high school class, near perfect standardized test scores, very high GPAs.

They did this with all of the time limitations dedication to a sport at that level takes. AP/honors courses with a few hours of practice a night, traveling/games all weekend long, having to leave school early some days because of practices....and some of these kids headed up Clubs or were in student government, etc.

Being part of a sports team teaches you lessons of working together to accomplish a goal. You experience failure, getting cut, persevering, working with some you may not get along with to accomplish a goal. LEADERSHIP.

Yes- you can achieve these things in other ways, but as a female in STEM--I find most of the women I know holding top CEO/CFO type positions all played sports competitively.

What if you wanted to play softball or take ballet lessons when you were little, and your parents wouldn’t pay nor were they willing to investigate any low-cost or free community programs?

You will never convince these people who worship at the altar of sports. As if it is unique in developing personality traits.

The part that I find mind numbing is that athletics are a core part of the tradition at Ivies, why even target the Ivies if athletics hold no value to a possible applicant?

Its literally like dreaming of being in the NFL but uncompromisingly believing that the NFL should not allow contact when its systemic to the game

+100 The obsession for Ivies among parents for their CS kid is stupid. Those are NOT the best CS schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Athletes don’t bring anything to the table that a talented musician, performer, inventor or businessperson also brings. Why special elite slots for them should be reserved to fill teams boggles my mind. Make all the sports club sports with no recruiting value other than an EC.

The intangibles that successful student athletes possess usually leads to these same kids succeeding and excelling in business, they are highly sought after by the most discriminating of employers to include and particularly wall street.

When I was at an elite group within a T3 investment bank I remember every recruiting season HR would drop a resume book of literally hundreds of resumes from a handful of school and asked for me to pick out some. When every resume is harvard, penn, columbia, etc. I looked for differentiating factors and athletics was among the top criteria I used. But more importantly, when it came to actually speaking with these candidates it was night - day in terms of how much better they were put together/polished from an effective communication perspective.

Yep. I am friends with and family members of some really, really, really smart people that also happened to be D1 athletes in their sport. These people were in the top of their high school class, near perfect standardized test scores, very high GPAs.

They did this with all of the time limitations dedication to a sport at that level takes. AP/honors courses with a few hours of practice a night, traveling/games all weekend long, having to leave school early some days because of practices....and some of these kids headed up Clubs or were in student government, etc.

Being part of a sports team teaches you lessons of working together to accomplish a goal. You experience failure, getting cut, persevering, working with some you may not get along with to accomplish a goal. LEADERSHIP.

Yes- you can achieve these things in other ways, but as a female in STEM--I find most of the women I know holding top CEO/CFO type positions all played sports competitively.

What if you wanted to play softball or take ballet lessons when you were little, and your parents wouldn’t pay nor were they willing to investigate any low-cost or free community programs?

You will never convince these people who worship at the altar of sports. As if it is unique in developing personality traits.

The part that I find mind numbing is that athletics are a core part of the tradition at Ivies, why even target the Ivies if athletics hold no value to a possible applicant?

Its literally like dreaming of being in the NFL but uncompromisingly believing that the NFL should not allow contact when its systemic to the game

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are having a hard time putting our list together. So wanted to find out where TJ kids with 4.3 - 4.4 GPA are likely to be accepted. Our DC is probably end up in that range with after her senior year with very high SAT score.

From TJ, you are not getting into the Ivy+ schools with that GPA unless you are aiming for something non-tech AND you have outstanding ECs that are one of a kind. Might have a shot if you are female or URM.

Share what your kid wants to study as well as profile (URM, male/female, GPA, number of APs, classes planned for senior year, intended course of study, ECs and leadership roles, etc.). Without that input, it's hard to provide any advice.

I assume this is specific to TJ—gpa.

My kid has had all As in the most rigorous course load available (honors/APs) and 4.4 gpa is the highest you can obtain (private). The school is known for rigor.

I assume schools with countless APs are different.

Highest TJ-gpa is generally between 4.6 - 4.7 (likely below 4.7). Even though most Ivy's and T10s say Gpa is just a data point, it is not true for TJ kids. The Naviance scattergram is clear on Ivy's and T10s only admitting TJ kids in the 4.5-4.6+ range. 4.3 -4.4 are right below where the Ivy's admit and they are either denied or waitlisted to be ultimately denied. The difference between a 4.4 and a 4.5 is couple of B+s and A-s in some of the hardest classes at TJ and for that matter for any high schooler at any school. The holistic admission is a total myth at least when it comes to TJ kids because data never lies. The admission of TJ kids are purely GPA driven.

I am not sure if it purely GPA driven. If that was the case, 4.52 kid should've gotten into Ivies/T10s.

Agree. Like my DC says, it hurts to realize that you are second echelon at TJ even though no one at base school can come close in comparison to the academic and EC accolades, but they will be going to T20, and your are not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD with GPA 4.52 (Junior year), 1580 SAT, all 5s in all her 8 APs from TJ with excellent ECs for CS, volunteering/community service and an internship did not get into any of the Ivies and waitlisted at CMU. Major - CS. Obviously we are disappointed. College admissions seems like a lottery.

Wait so where is your kid going???? After that INSANE amount of work was it worth it? This is so depressing

Anonymous wrote:Humblebrag of the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC had 4.4-4.5 from TJ.

36 ACT.

National science award winner.

University of Chicago.

The Ivies are overrated IMO and I went to one of the Big 3 Ivy schools.

Ivies are not as interested in excellence anymore.

Nah, UChicago is not interested in excellence. They didn’t accept my 4.5-4.6 kid

U of Chicago is not an Ivy League school. It is an Ivy League-caliber school, but it is not in the Ivy League.

My concern about the direction of the Ivy League is that it admitting more activists and fewer academics.

My hubby has complained for years that Ivy grads he hires are more “hit or miss” than they used to be. Small sample size, but other employers I know feel the same. College activists make poor scientists, professors, lawyers and doctors. We need great scientists more than we need another over-educated activist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC had 4.4-4.5 from TJ.

36 ACT.

National science award winner.

University of Chicago.

The Ivies are overrated IMO and I went to one of the Big 3 Ivy schools.

Ivies are not as interested in excellence anymore.

Nah, UChicago is not interested in excellence. They didn’t accept my 4.5-4.6 kid

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC had 4.4-4.5 from TJ.

36 ACT.

National science award winner.

University of Chicago.

The Ivies are overrated IMO and I went to one of the Big 3 Ivy schools.

Ivies are not as interested in excellence anymore.

I like how PP cites the fact she went to a Big 3 like that somehow lends credibility to her internal ranking of colleges.

Well obviously when she went it was about excellence. Only when her kid is rejected does it mean they are not interested in excellence.

My DC got into the University of Chicago which is a top 6 school and was higher on DC’s list than most of the Ivies. So no crying here. Was rejected by Princeton and my alma mater, Harvard. Just my opinion. Attack it if you want, but I probably know more about the Ivies than you do.

On what basis do you think you know more about the ivies? Because you went to Harvard and saw your kid rejected by two schools? The only thing you appear to have learned at Harvard is self importance.

You should never assume you are the only Harvard alum in the world. Or that anyone should defer to you because you are one.

Harvard's been "diversifying" lately, watering down its brand. The Harvard PP ought to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC had 4.4-4.5 from TJ.

36 ACT.

National science award winner.

University of Chicago.

The Ivies are overrated IMO and I went to one of the Big 3 Ivy schools.

Ivies are not as interested in excellence anymore.

I like how PP cites the fact she went to a Big 3 like that somehow lends credibility to her internal ranking of colleges.

Well obviously when she went it was about excellence. Only when her kid is rejected does it mean they are not interested in excellence.

My DC got into the University of Chicago which is a top 6 school and was higher on DC’s list than most of the Ivies. So no crying here. Was rejected by Princeton and my alma mater, Harvard. Just my opinion. Attack it if you want, but I probably know more about the Ivies than you do.

On what basis do you think you know more about the ivies? Because you went to Harvard and saw your kid rejected by two schools? The only thing you appear to have learned at Harvard is self importance.

You should never assume you are the only Harvard alum in the world. Or that anyone should defer to you because you are one.

Harvard's been "diversifying" lately, watering down its brand. The Harvard PP ought to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC had 4.4-4.5 from TJ.

36 ACT.

National science award winner.

University of Chicago.

The Ivies are overrated IMO and I went to one of the Big 3 Ivy schools.

Ivies are not as interested in excellence anymore.

I like how PP cites the fact she went to a Big 3 like that somehow lends credibility to her internal ranking of colleges.

Well obviously when she went it was about excellence. Only when her kid is rejected does it mean they are not interested in excellence.

My DC got into the University of Chicago which is a top 6 school and was higher on DC’s list than most of the Ivies. So no crying here. Was rejected by Princeton and my alma mater, Harvard. Just my opinion. Attack it if you want, but I probably know more about the Ivies than you do.

On what basis do you think you know more about the ivies? Because you went to Harvard and saw your kid rejected by two schools? The only thing you appear to have learned at Harvard is self importance.

You should never assume you are the only Harvard alum in the world. Or that anyone should defer to you because you are one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC had 4.4-4.5 from TJ.

36 ACT.

National science award winner.

University of Chicago.

The Ivies are overrated IMO and I went to one of the Big 3 Ivy schools.

Ivies are not as interested in excellence anymore.

I like how PP cites the fact she went to a Big 3 like that somehow lends credibility to her internal ranking of colleges.

Well obviously when she went it was about excellence. Only when her kid is rejected does it mean they are not interested in excellence.

My DC got into the University of Chicago which is a top 6 school and was higher on DC’s list than most of the Ivies. So no crying here. Was rejected by Princeton and my alma mater, Harvard. Just my opinion. Attack it if you want, but I probably know more about the Ivies than you do.

On what basis do you think you know more about the ivies? Because you went to Harvard and saw your kid rejected by two schools? The only thing you appear to have learned at Harvard is self importance.

You should never assume you are the only Harvard alum in the world. Or that anyone should defer to you because you are one.