Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are these concerns coming from? The news? I know a lot of college kids, including my own, and this doesn’t seem to be an actual problem.

Maybe I’m overthinking or influenced by the news, but I get the impression that many students at top schools are wealthy and/or not very engaged academically. Either that or there are some students prioritize finding internships or jobs over attending classes. Plus the news about under-qualified students (UCSD).

Ok, I think you’re conflating a ton of different issues. Many schools are more pre-professional than they used to be, but that doesn’t mean the students aren’t academically strong. They’re just more interested in “employable” majors. You might not like this trend but it’s unrelated to the issues you raise.

Secondly, wealth and academic achievement are highly correlated in this country. Wealthy kids are often very smart and well prepared. They’ve benefited from strong education. It’s strange to assume that they would not be prepared college students nor academically focused.

Third, pretty much every school, even the most podunk, will have a cohort of high achieving kids.

IQ is overrated

Anonymous wrote:If I asked AI to calculate the ratio to rule out the hooked admit:
* Athletic recruit
* Legacy or donation
* Academically compromised groups
* Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes

It leaves 25% of the student body. Does this sound about right? Do we have higher ratio in public universities than private?

If I asked AI to calculate your IQ would it be in triple digits?

Anonymous wrote:Where are these concerns coming from? The news? I know a lot of college kids, including my own, and this doesn’t seem to be an actual problem.

Maybe I’m overthinking or influenced by the news, but I get the impression that many students at top schools are wealthy and/or not very engaged academically. Either that or there are some students prioritize finding internships or jobs over attending classes. Plus the news about under-qualified students (UCSD).

Where are these concerns coming from? The news? I know a lot of college kids, including my own, and this doesn’t seem to be an actual problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really bothers me when people keep bringing up race. Serious students exist in every race.

You'd think. But there is enormous differentiation overall in real life academic performance between white and asian students and black and latino students.

The upside is that this generation of 18 year olds is very mixed so old racial patterns don't matter so much. It'd be a dumb way to determine anything. There are millions of 18 year olds that can choose multiple boxes today. Race is becoming less relevant every year.

I get that, but at research-heavy universities, there are plenty of students who are really passionate about learning and debating ideas. Higher education should focus on advancing knowledge, not on social justice in ways that slow intellectual progress or selling brands for the sake of vanity reasons.

Anonymous wrote:It really bothers me when people keep bringing up race. Serious students exist in every race.

You'd think. But there is enormous differentiation overall in real life academic performance between white and asian students and black and latino students.

The upside is that this generation of 18 year olds is very mixed so old racial patterns don't matter so much. It'd be a dumb way to determine anything. There are millions of 18 year olds that can choose multiple boxes today. Race is becoming less relevant every year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you assume the legacies are dumb? The Princeton student newspaper’s survey shows legacy have higher SATs than non legacies. They also broke out scores by athletes, etc.

How many legacy admits would you say are academically strong?

Ok, based on when I went to Princeton, 80%. Now? Based on classmates’ kids who are there? Higher.

Princeton has definitely kept up its reputation. I imagine the classrooms and campus atmosphere are very focused on academics.

I share OP’s concerns and think this is one reason major has become so important today. The academic quality of students in majors requiring calculus, or orgo, or formal logic, or anything else that passes for a weed-out course, is dramatically different from the academic quality of students in what we might call open-admission majors. This has always been the case at state schools but it now seems to be the case nearly everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I asked AI to calculate the ratio to rule out the hooked admit:
* Athletic recruit
* Legacy or donation
* Academically compromised groups
* Consultant polished, packaged, fake spikes

It leaves 25% of the student body. Does this sound about right? Do we have higher ratio in public universities than private?

That sounds about right for SWAP. 1/3 atheletes, 1/3 FGLI, some legacies and donors, about 1/4 unhooked high stats.

Probably higher at ivies and T20s. Not sure how much.

The amount of legacies in a given year at these lacs is in the single digit range.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you assume the legacies are dumb? The Princeton student newspaper’s survey shows legacy have higher SATs than non legacies. They also broke out scores by athletes, etc.

How many legacy admits would you say are academically strong?

Ok, based on when I went to Princeton, 80%. Now? Based on classmates’ kids who are there? Higher.

Anonymous wrote:Are there really than many kids who get in because their parents give money? I would think there aren't that many. Isn't a Harvard spot like 10 million now?

Also, haven't most of the top schools done away with the legacy bump?

You don’t have to go far down the list before full pay begins to matter, a lot. Even “need blind” schools are looking for the indicia of wealth (private high school, ED application, etc.). I would put basically every test-optional school that offers early decision in this category. Vandy, WashU, Columbia, Chicago, etc.

It’s one big reason that so many people for whom full pay would be a stretch decide that only the top handful of private schools are worth paying for.

Are there really than many kids who get in because their parents give money? I would think there aren't that many. Isn't a Harvard spot like 10 million now?

Also, haven't most of the top schools done away with the legacy bump?

It really bothers me when people keep bringing up race. Serious students exist in every race.

Anonymous wrote:What is your real concern? Not enough serious kids at top schools? Fear that your kid won’t be admitted because he/she’s not in a priority area?

Mainly not enough serious kids.