Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Shut out of top, but fallback was UT-Austin in state auto admit. They were good only bc they had a strong safety.
person 1 - 1600 SAT, rank 1 out of 600+, rejected all ivies, lots of AP, stanford, michigan, duke, chicago, northwestern, varsity sport
person 2 - 1580 SAT, top 5%, lots of AP, varsity sport, rejected UVA, UNC, Duke.
Have a good safety!
Should have mentioned - both were rejected everywhere but their safety
same for my high stats magnet kid. It was rough.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s about the difference between a competitive candidate and a compelling candidate.
I just heard Duke’s AO speak about this on a recent podcast. Super helpful.
Agree.
People think high stats gets you in. Look at what ppl are posting. Stats are irrelevant after a certain point. It does not get you “in”. Just gets your app read.
Lower (but still baseline) stats can get you in, if you are otherwise “compelling” (defined as geo diversity; major (way more relevant than people think); identity hooks; what you do inside and outside the classroom (evidenced by LOR and national awards); and most importantly, whether the school needs more of that type of person this year).
You want to be the type of student who fits into a specific bucket.
Apply widely bc you don’t know what buckets each school needs that year.
This feels like a "Game of Luck."
Luck and games. Private school kids play the game better. At least the hundreds of thousands of dollars they spent on tuition will let them overspend for college too.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Shut out of top, but fallback was UT-Austin in state auto admit. They were good only bc they had a strong safety.
person 1 - 1600 SAT, rank 1 out of 600+, rejected all ivies, lots of AP, stanford, michigan, duke, chicago, northwestern, varsity sport
person 2 - 1580 SAT, top 5%, lots of AP, varsity sport, rejected UVA, UNC, Duke.
Have a good safety!
Should have mentioned - both were rejected everywhere but their safety
same for my high stats magnet kid. It was rough.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s about the difference between a competitive candidate and a compelling candidate.
I just heard Duke’s AO speak about this on a recent podcast. Super helpful.
Agree.
People think high stats gets you in. Look at what ppl are posting. Stats are irrelevant after a certain point. It does not get you “in”. Just gets your app read.
Lower (but still baseline) stats can get you in, if you are otherwise “compelling” (defined as geo diversity; major (way more relevant than people think); identity hooks; what you do inside and outside the classroom (evidenced by LOR and national awards); and most importantly, whether the school needs more of that type of person this year).
You want to be the type of student who fits into a specific bucket.
Apply widely bc you don’t know what buckets each school needs that year.
This feels like a "Game of Luck."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s about the difference between a competitive candidate and a compelling candidate.
I just heard Duke’s AO speak about this on a recent podcast. Super helpful.
Agree.
People think high stats gets you in. Look at what ppl are posting. Stats are irrelevant after a certain point. It does not get you “in”. Just gets your app read.
Lower (but still baseline) stats can get you in, if you are otherwise “compelling” (defined as geo diversity; major (way more relevant than people think); identity hooks; what you do inside and outside the classroom (evidenced by LOR and national awards); and most importantly, whether the school needs more of that type of person this year).
You want to be the type of student who fits into a specific bucket.
Apply widely bc you don’t know what buckets each school needs that year.
Anonymous wrote:It’s about the difference between a competitive candidate and a compelling candidate.
I just heard Duke’s AO speak about this on a recent podcast. Super helpful.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Shut out of top, but fallback was UT-Austin in state auto admit. They were good only bc they had a strong safety.
person 1 - 1600 SAT, rank 1 out of 600+, rejected all ivies, lots of AP, stanford, michigan, duke, chicago, northwestern, varsity sport
person 2 - 1580 SAT, top 5%, lots of AP, varsity sport, rejected UVA, UNC, Duke.
Have a good safety!
Should have mentioned - both were rejected everywhere but their safety
Anonymous wrote:Shut out of top, but fallback was UT-Austin in state auto admit. They were good only bc they had a strong safety.
person 1 - 1600 SAT, rank 1 out of 600+, rejected all ivies, lots of AP, stanford, michigan, duke, chicago, northwestern, varsity sport
person 2 - 1580 SAT, top 5%, lots of AP, varsity sport, rejected UVA, UNC, Duke.
Have a good safety!