Anonymous wrote:But the admissions have changed to essentially remove the quirky geniuses from the student population, because you are only getting into a T20 if you have the executive functioning skills of a mid-career project manager.

exactly

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me think l hope my kid chooses to go to school in Canada, where I’m from originally. Much easier to get into a great school, and pretty much everyone has a great time. Not a pressure cooker. (I hope it’s still like that!!)

Working hard at a academic pursuits is a great time for some of these students. Some of them like it. They are are finally in an environment where being a nerd is an asset instead of a liability.

nerd =/= grind

My kid, the OP, is a nerd.

Grinding away the day, night, weekend and holidays to get all As and kill your competition is something else entirely.

You get it OP. Getting into a T20 requires grinding. As you note, they are filled with a lot of ruthless Tracy Flicks. It’s not nerds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it’s a real problem. You aren’t going to find a T20 that isn’t largely populated by Tracy Flicks. Sorry.

+1. Being a grind is how most of these kids got in in the first place. I’m from NC and would say UNC— not quite T20, but close. They must take 80% in state, and their public school system ain’t all that. May be UVA competitive from RTP or Charlotte. But, there will be lots of kids who are solid, but took 5 APs and had some fun. I have to think UT- Austin and some UCs are the same, since the whole states aren’t insanely academically competitive. Also add UGA.

Now, Good luck transferring in OOS.

Way off. Those places might be more social, but it takes a lot more than 5 APs to get into those schools. Those kids are all top of their class with 4.5 GPAs too, they just didn’t have a hook to get them into a top 20.

In many parts of the state. But, just like ROVA and seats in VA, NC has areas with really cruddy public schools and few of any privates. Schools that only offer 5APs My HS shows that it offers 5 APs- Calc AB, English Lit, Spanish and US and World. None in science. 82% FARMS. You don’t have to put in the academic hours you do in NOVA. You can get the 4.0, socialize, play a spot and still not feel time stressed. Which is why we moved and sent our kids to school here. NC has some depressed areas where furniture and textiles left.

The top 5-6 kids in my class of 100 got into UNC. I imagine it’s the same today. They did the best theY could with what they had. And the state flagship will educate top 5-10%. And they were not raised in a highly accelerated, high stress, high stakes environment, like NOVA.

Again. 80% of UNC states are saved for NC. And the dirt poor, depressed areas get seats too.

And that’s not a slight on those kids. Because I was those kids. My sister went to UNC three years later. And we both graduated with honors. But, when I look at what I put in vs what my Kids put in. No contest. I went to college having always been the best from m area. I expected the good grades and worked for them. But I was much less stressed and overloaded.

I think this student needs to forget the ranking list and seek out a school with a more traditional party social scene than a tip ranked school. Op said this kid "Held nose" over the rankings anyway so it sounds like they are turned off by that type of institution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carleton

OP said T20.

Idiotic and ignorant. Carleton is a top 10 SLAC, but you’re clueless about any college that’s not a national university.

Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Barnard, Wellesley, Swarthmore, Middlebury, Harvey Mudd, Grinnell, Bowdoin and many others come before it on top SLAC lists but yes its a good SLAC, however never ranked on ANY T20 list.

+1
Carleton is not a school most people have ever heard of. PP sounds triggered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carleton

OP said T20.

Idiotic and ignorant. Carleton is a top 10 SLAC, but you’re clueless about any college that’s not a national university.

Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Barnard, Wellesley, Swarthmore, Middlebury, Harvey Mudd, Grinnell, Bowdoin and many others come before it on top SLAC lists but yes its a good SLAC, however never ranked on ANY T20 list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it’s a real problem. You aren’t going to find a T20 that isn’t largely populated by Tracy Flicks. Sorry.

+1. Being a grind is how most of these kids got in in the first place. I’m from NC and would say UNC— not quite T20, but close. They must take 80% in state, and their public school system ain’t all that. May be UVA competitive from RTP or Charlotte. But, there will be lots of kids who are solid, but took 5 APs and had some fun. I have to think UT- Austin and some UCs are the same, since the whole states aren’t insanely academically competitive. Also add UGA.

Now, Good luck transferring in OOS.

Way off. Those places might be more social, but it takes a lot more than 5 APs to get into those schools. Those kids are all top of their class with 4.5 GPAs too, they just didn’t have a hook to get them into a top 20.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Rice (maybe not quite T20) because I wanted that less intense vibe and it was a perfect fit. Really, really bright kids who were interesting and didn’t take themselves too seriously. I feel like I grew into a happy adult, in large part, because of my college experience there.

Rice is indeed a top 20. #15, to be exact.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

My current Rice student's exact experience. Great work/life balance. It's hard, but also a lot of fun. Super happy there.

Anonymous wrote:I went to Rice (maybe not quite T20) because I wanted that less intense vibe and it was a perfect fit. Really, really bright kids who were interesting and didn’t take themselves too seriously. I feel like I grew into a happy adult, in large part, because of my college experience there.

I don't know when you went to college but since at least 10 years, Rice consistently makes it to every T20 list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carleton

OP said T20.

Idiotic and ignorant. Carleton is a top 10 SLAC, but you’re clueless about any college that’s not a national university.

Anonymous wrote:Carleton

OP said T20.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it’s a real problem. You aren’t going to find a T20 that isn’t largely populated by Tracy Flicks. Sorry.

Especially nowadays given what it takes to get into a t 20. Might have been different 25 years ago

25 years ago you could get the disorganized geniuses who walked into the SATs and got 1600 without studying and who kept up a 3.7 or so GPA by never doing the homework but acing the tests. Perfect and intense executive function wasn’t a skill set universally required for admissions back then. But the admissions have changed to essentially remove the quirky geniuses from the student population, because you are only getting into a T20 if you have the executive functioning skills of a mid-career project manager. Hence schools populated almost entirely by Tracy Flicks. Even the athletes are Tracy Flicks. It’s kind of bizarre.

This whole notion that there were all these "disorganized geniuses " in earlier years, and kids now are just well organized with the "geniuses" getting shut out is silly. Back in my day 1600 was an unheard of score. Kids who did well were likely natural test takers with parents who valued education and/or in good schools. We weren't necessarily smarter than kids who didn't score as well. You didn't find these natural Good Will Hunting " geniuses laying about. That is just nonsense. Kids these days are working hard to demonstrate their intellect, artistic talent and work ethic. And, competition is tough. It's not like the "true geniuses" are getting shut out by average bureaucrats. In fact, back in the day, a lot more spaces were going to legacy and connected. Now, kids are submitting evidence of far more course rigor than we had plus talents, etc

I knew multiple kids who got 1580 and 1600 without studying or prepping in the 1980s.

Suuuuuure. In 85-86 only 9 out of 1.7 million got a 1600, but you knew at least half of them, right? I was NM in '88. Very few scored in upper 1500s, and they had excellent preparation in their schooling and support at home. They were also excellent students for the most part. Sure I know some high scorers who didn't organize their time well at school and could have gotten better grades. I was one of them! But this whole notion of "old days" "geniuses " vs. today's "pencil pushers" is just completely bogus. Sure kids are working harder. Because the competition is tougher -- with more applicants for limited spaces.

So defensive.

Nope. Remember. I am a high scorer from the old days, without prep even, so I have nothing to gain by calling out your "alternative facts."

Deflecting doesn't change that your statement was bogus with fake data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it’s a real problem. You aren’t going to find a T20 that isn’t largely populated by Tracy Flicks. Sorry.

Especially nowadays given what it takes to get into a t 20. Might have been different 25 years ago

25 years ago you could get the disorganized geniuses who walked into the SATs and got 1600 without studying and who kept up a 3.7 or so GPA by never doing the homework but acing the tests. Perfect and intense executive function wasn’t a skill set universally required for admissions back then. But the admissions have changed to essentially remove the quirky geniuses from the student population, because you are only getting into a T20 if you have the executive functioning skills of a mid-career project manager. Hence schools populated almost entirely by Tracy Flicks. Even the athletes are Tracy Flicks. It’s kind of bizarre.

This whole notion that there were all these "disorganized geniuses " in earlier years, and kids now are just well organized with the "geniuses" getting shut out is silly. Back in my day 1600 was an unheard of score. Kids who did well were likely natural test takers with parents who valued education and/or in good schools. We weren't necessarily smarter than kids who didn't score as well. You didn't find these natural Good Will Hunting " geniuses laying about. That is just nonsense. Kids these days are working hard to demonstrate their intellect, artistic talent and work ethic. And, competition is tough. It's not like the "true geniuses" are getting shut out by average bureaucrats. In fact, back in the day, a lot more spaces were going to legacy and connected. Now, kids are submitting evidence of far more course rigor than we had plus talents, etc

I knew multiple kids who got 1580 and 1600 without studying or prepping in the 1980s.

Suuuuuure. In 85-86 only 9 out of 1.7 million got a 1600, but you knew at least half of them, right? I was NM in '88. Very few scored in upper 1500s, and they had excellent preparation in their schooling and support at home. They were also excellent students for the most part. Sure I know some high scorers who didn't organize their time well at school and could have gotten better grades. I was one of them! But this whole notion of "old days" "geniuses " vs. today's "pencil pushers" is just completely bogus. Sure kids are working harder. Because the competition is tougher -- with more applicants for limited spaces.

+1. Very few kids were scoring in the upper 1500s before the 1995 recentering. The ones who did earned outstanding grades too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me think l hope my kid chooses to go to school in Canada, where I’m from originally. Much easier to get into a great school, and pretty much everyone has a great time. Not a pressure cooker. (I hope it’s still like that!!)

Working hard at a academic pursuits is a great time for some of these students. Some of them like it. They are are finally in an environment where being a nerd is an asset instead of a liability.

nerd =/= grind

My kid, the OP, is a nerd.

Grinding away the day, night, weekend and holidays to get all As and kill your competition is something else entirely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it’s a real problem. You aren’t going to find a T20 that isn’t largely populated by Tracy Flicks. Sorry.

Especially nowadays given what it takes to get into a t 20. Might have been different 25 years ago

25 years ago you could get the disorganized geniuses who walked into the SATs and got 1600 without studying and who kept up a 3.7 or so GPA by never doing the homework but acing the tests. Perfect and intense executive function wasn’t a skill set universally required for admissions back then. But the admissions have changed to essentially remove the quirky geniuses from the student population, because you are only getting into a T20 if you have the executive functioning skills of a mid-career project manager. Hence schools populated almost entirely by Tracy Flicks. Even the athletes are Tracy Flicks. It’s kind of bizarre.

This whole notion that there were all these "disorganized geniuses " in earlier years, and kids now are just well organized with the "geniuses" getting shut out is silly. Back in my day 1600 was an unheard of score. Kids who did well were likely natural test takers with parents who valued education and/or in good schools. We weren't necessarily smarter than kids who didn't score as well. You didn't find these natural Good Will Hunting " geniuses laying about. That is just nonsense. Kids these days are working hard to demonstrate their intellect, artistic talent and work ethic. And, competition is tough. It's not like the "true geniuses" are getting shut out by average bureaucrats. In fact, back in the day, a lot more spaces were going to legacy and connected. Now, kids are submitting evidence of far more course rigor than we had plus talents, etc

I knew multiple kids who got 1580 and 1600 without studying or prepping in the 1980s.

Suuuuuure. In 85-86 only 9 out of 1.7 million got a 1600, but you knew at least half of them, right? I was NM in '88. Very few scored in upper 1500s, and they had excellent preparation in their schooling and support at home. They were also excellent students for the most part. Sure I know some high scorers who didn't organize their time well at school and could have gotten better grades. I was one of them! But this whole notion of "old days" "geniuses " vs. today's "pencil pushers" is just completely bogus. Sure kids are working harder. Because the competition is tougher -- with more applicants for limited spaces.

So defensive.