Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC high stats from magnet, SAT 1600, GPA 4.0 UW, 4.78 W, 7 AP's with all 5's and one 4, school club leader, founder of a national non profit rejected from Princeton and top public schools, accepted into UMD honors.
What is wrong with this profile? Got deferred from a couple other top public schools. So far UMD is the only one in hand.

It could be that the essays or recommendations weren’t compelling.

Anonymous wrote:Shut. Up.

Private universities can do whatever the hell they want. Can be biased and obscure as they want. Don’t like it, don’t go there. However, we should not be allowing our state public universities to be opaque and biased.

Anonymous wrote:College advisors are telling parents to send their kids to intensive research programs for the summer while in high school. But I think that's a mistake given the interest in pointy applicants. Once you hit the threshold for smartness, you can't distinguish yourself with more smartness. You need something to make you different.

"Some are obnoxious and some are not like every other college. But they all seem to have some freakish talent in addition to string all overall academics. All the ones that went to the top of the top were uber competitive musicians, or scientists, or athletes, or artists, etc."

Anonymous wrote:College advisors are telling parents to send their kids to intensive research programs for the summer while in high school. But I think that's a mistake given the interest in pointy applicants. Once you hit the threshold for smartness, you can't distinguish yourself with more smartness. You need something to make you different.

"Some are obnoxious and some are not like every other college. But they all seem to have some freakish talent in addition to string all overall academics. All the ones that went to the top of the top were uber competitive musicians, or scientists, or athletes, or artists, etc."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC high stats from magnet, SAT 1600, GPA 4.0 UW, 4.78 W, 7 AP's with all 5's and one 4, school club leader, founder of a national non profit rejected from Princeton and top public schools, accepted into UMD honors.
What is wrong with this profile? Got deferred from a couple other top public schools. So far UMD is the only one in hand.

It could be that the essays or recommendations weren’t compelling.

Or, more likely, the applicant was Asian American or Caucasian and not first-generation

Please stop making this about race. My white kid fits the above specs with talents, great ecs, leadership, national awards, and super rigorous classes at a top magnet. Got outright rejected scea. It happens. There are way more highly qualified kids than spots. She's rounded rather than pointy. Her essay could have been better (revised for rd apps, fingers crossed). They want to compile a class. They have many, many choices.

If we're jealous of anyone it's the connected legacy/private school people, but really, there are just so many high stats kids. Please don't blame this on race.

These very selective universities do not look for rounded admits. They all seem to be pointy...very very pointy. that is the type that is chosen to attend those schools.

That sounds like a polyglot of obnoxious students. I think I’d rather be and be around the more well-rounded ones.

Anonymous wrote:Private universities can do whatever the hell they want. Can be biased and obscure as they want. Don’t like it, don’t go there. However, we should not be allowing our state public universities to be opaque and biased.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC high stats from magnet, SAT 1600, GPA 4.0 UW, 4.78 W, 7 AP's with all 5's and one 4, school club leader, founder of a national non profit rejected from Princeton and top public schools, accepted into UMD honors.
What is wrong with this profile? Got deferred from a couple other top public schools. So far UMD is the only one in hand.

It could be that the essays or recommendations weren’t compelling.

Or, more likely, the applicant was Asian American or Caucasian and not first-generation

Please stop making this about race. My white kid fits the above specs with talents, great ecs, leadership, national awards, and super rigorous classes at a top magnet. Got outright rejected scea. It happens. There are way more highly qualified kids than spots. She's rounded rather than pointy. Her essay could have been better (revised for rd apps, fingers crossed). They want to compile a class. They have many, many choices.

If we're jealous of anyone it's the connected legacy/private school people, but really, there are just so many high stats kids. Please don't blame this on race.

These very selective universities do not look for rounded admits. They all seem to be pointy...very very pointy. that is the type that is chosen to attend those schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC high stats from magnet, SAT 1600, GPA 4.0 UW, 4.78 W, 7 AP's with all 5's and one 4, school club leader, founder of a national non profit rejected from Princeton and top public schools, accepted into UMD honors.
What is wrong with this profile? Got deferred from a couple other top public schools. So far UMD is the only one in hand.

It could be that the essays or recommendations weren’t compelling.

Or, more likely, the applicant was Asian American or Caucasian and not first-generation

Please stop making this about race. My white kid fits the above specs with talents, great ecs, leadership, national awards, and super rigorous classes at a top magnet. Got outright rejected scea. It happens. There are way more highly qualified kids than spots. She's rounded rather than pointy. Her essay could have been better (revised for rd apps, fingers crossed). They want to compile a class. They have many, many choices.

If we're jealous of anyone it's the connected legacy/private school people, but really, there are just so many high stats kids. Please don't blame this on race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!