Anonymous wrote:Wow TJ and 4.0+ and still so hard..

Curious..are TJ kids with a 3.75 to 4 GPA and average EC profile, screwed?

Are they worse off at TJ, compared to getting the same stats at their base school?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP Does anyone know why TJ kids don't choose Georgia Tech? Is it that they don't get in or they choose not to go?

Ranked 38, not prestigious enough for them.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP Does anyone know why TJ kids don't choose Georgia Tech? Is it that they don't get in or they choose not to go?

Ranked 38, not prestigious enough for them.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they want a student body with diverse interests. If you cannot understand how diverse experiences positively impact a student body, then you should seriously take a step back and think about it and get some exposure. This is not CS trade school. It’s college and is meant as a intellectual maturing experience. That’s why there are core requirements at many schools, to give the student depth. If you want trade school, go to coding boot camp. College is meant to create well rounded thinkers. To do that, you need more than one type of student with different perspectives and types of experiences.

I understand what you're saying, but I think even kids at HYPSM would disagree that the purpose of their 4 years in college is to "create well-rounded thinkers." I think the explosion of CS at the Ivies (most of which are not that great at CS) shows how most college students, even those at HYP, view their four years as "coding boot camp" or like 4 years of pre-professional, high-end trade school. The book "Excellent Sheep" by a former Yale professor talks about this phenomena -- most Ivy kids are not all that intellectual and are just in it for the ROI. Whether or not this is a good thing is debatable, but I do think it's a bit naive to claim that elite schools are for intellectual exposure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they want a student body with diverse interests. If you cannot understand how diverse experiences positively impact a student body, then you should seriously take a step back and think about it and get some exposure. This is not CS trade school. It’s college and is meant as a intellectual maturing experience. That’s why there are core requirements at many schools, to give the student depth. If you want trade school, go to coding boot camp. College is meant to create well rounded thinkers. To do that, you need more than one type of student with different perspectives and types of experiences.

I understand what you're saying, but I think even kids at HYPSM would disagree that the purpose of their 4 years in college is to "create well-rounded thinkers." I think the explosion of CS at the Ivies (most of which are not that great at CS) shows how most college students, even those at HYP, view their four years as "coding boot camp" or like 4 years of pre-professional, high-end trade school. The book "Excellent Sheep" by a former Yale professor talks about this phenomena -- most Ivy kids are not all that intellectual and are just in it for the ROI. Whether or not this is a good thing is debatable, but I do think it's a bit naive to claim that elite schools are for intellectual exposure.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they want a student body with diverse interests. If you cannot understand how diverse experiences positively impact a student body, then you should seriously take a step back and think about it and get some exposure. This is not CS trade school. It’s college and is meant as a intellectual maturing experience. That’s why there are core requirements at many schools, to give the student depth. If you want trade school, go to coding boot camp. College is meant to create well rounded thinkers. To do that, you need more than one type of student with different perspectives and types of experiences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow, such ignorance. Ladies and gentlemen, Tucker Carlson's joined and blessed us with his indisputable opinion about college grads and what the world needs.

Oh my God. Anybody who disagrees with you is a right winger. Brilliant. What a knucklehead.