Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA ED was harder at our school than year’s past.

Our school's UVA admissions was much easier for the girls and basically non existent for boys.

Usually UVA favors girls, along the lines of 3 girls to 2 boys

This year was more than a half dozen girls and 1 boy.

Um maybe because the girls were more qualified? “Favors” lmao

NP. Girls have, on average, higher GPAs than boys, on average. The heavier GPA weighs in admissions algorithms (vs, say, rigor and math scores), the more girls will be admitted.

The problem with your hypothesis is that the girls are equal in rigor, have higher GPA, higher Verbal scores, and only slightly lower math scores at the tail so it isn't "because of the algorithm". Overall they are just better prepared and better students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After Harvard case came down, colleges are using alternative methods to increase diversity on campus. The donors/connection are not affected. Your high performing unhooked kids in private schools or magnet schools will be affected.

This year many colleges have a focus on:
1. Economical diversity: First gen, Low income
2. Geographic diversity: Rural area

I wouldn't be surprised to see more rejections and deferrals this year in affluent areas.

Yup. Middle/upper middle class white suburban kids are the odd men out and are increasingly getting screwed. No one is throwing a pity party but it has really gone too far in that direction.

Again, no pity party for these people but I know a lot of Ivy types with kids who are very smart but not quite Ivy level (even with legacy) who are panicking as their kids won't get into the legacy school, and without a legacy or another hook have no shot at the schools a level below. Kids would have been better off if the parents had gone to worse schools.

This is not how it was supposed to be.

Has it really? For the past 60 years rural white males have been the most neglected group. Completely invisible, with nobody paying any attention or caring, and look where that has gotten us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA ED was harder at our school than year’s past.

Our school's UVA admissions was much easier for the girls and basically non existent for boys.

Usually UVA favors girls, along the lines of 3 girls to 2 boys

This year was more than a half dozen girls and 1 boy.

Um maybe because the girls were more qualified? “Favors” lmao

NP. Girls have, on average, higher GPAs than boys, on average. The heavier GPA weighs in admissions algorithms (vs, say, rigor and math scores), the more girls will be admitted.

Requiring test scores would do wonders to validate GPAs and show that boys are just as capable but take a bit longer to reach that “all A” GPA in high school that you often see in girls. 13-15 year old boys are about 2 years behind girls on executive functioning skills and it shows up in their grades. My experience is at a private school that doesn’t allow late work or re-takes of tests. Maybe this isn’t as much of a factor at some publics that allow kids to turn in homework late with no penalty or retake tests so they know what to study for on the second attempt. IYKYK

PP. I totally get that, having seen it with both boys and girls in my own family. Unfortunately, my daughter also suffered from a bit of something, motivation or perspective perhaps, freshman year. Now pulling all As junior year so far in five APs, a classic "upward trend" but the die is cast, I'm afraid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend's kid's fairly small private school got 3-4 in ED to Rice. Normally not a feeder. I think one might have had a hook.

Questbridge in theory is fine but has grown out of control.

What were the stats that got those kids into Rice?

You're not entitled to that information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA ED was harder at our school than year’s past.

Our school's UVA admissions was much easier for the girls and basically non existent for boys.

Usually UVA favors girls, along the lines of 3 girls to 2 boys

This year was more than a half dozen girls and 1 boy.

Um maybe because the girls were more qualified? “Favors” lmao

NP. Girls have, on average, higher GPAs than boys, on average. The heavier GPA weighs in admissions algorithms (vs, say, rigor and math scores), the more girls will be admitted.

Requiring test scores would do wonders to validate GPAs and show that boys are just as capable but take a bit longer to reach that “all A” GPA in high school that you often see in girls. 13-15 year old boys are about 2 years behind girls on executive functioning skills and it shows up in their grades. My experience is at a private school that doesn’t allow late work or re-takes of tests. Maybe this isn’t as much of a factor at some publics that allow kids to turn in homework late with no penalty or retake tests so they know what to study for on the second attempt. IYKYK

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA ED was harder at our school than year’s past.

Our school's UVA admissions was much easier for the girls and basically non existent for boys.

Usually UVA favors girls, along the lines of 3 girls to 2 boys

This year was more than a half dozen girls and 1 boy.

Um maybe because the girls were more qualified? “Favors” lmao

NP. Girls have, on average, higher GPAs than boys, on average. The heavier GPA weighs in admissions algorithms (vs, say, rigor and math scores), the more girls will be admitted.

Anonymous wrote:After Harvard case came down, colleges are using alternative methods to increase diversity on campus. The donors/connection are not affected. Your high performing unhooked kids in private schools or magnet schools will be affected.

This year many colleges have a focus on:
1. Economical diversity: First gen, Low income
2. Geographic diversity: Rural area

I wouldn't be surprised to see more rejections and deferrals this year in affluent areas.

Yup. Middle/upper middle class white suburban kids are the odd men out and are increasingly getting screwed. No one is throwing a pity party but it has really gone too far in that direction.

Again, no pity party for these people but I know a lot of Ivy types with kids who are very smart but not quite Ivy level (even with legacy) who are panicking as their kids won't get into the legacy school, and without a legacy or another hook have no shot at the schools a level below. Kids would have been better off if the parents had gone to worse schools.

This is not how it was supposed to be.

After Harvard case came down, colleges are using alternative methods to increase diversity on campus. The donors/connection are not affected. Your high performing unhooked kids in private schools or magnet schools will be affected.

This year many colleges have a focus on:
1. Economical diversity: First gen, Low income
2. Geographic diversity: Rural area

I wouldn't be surprised to see more rejections and deferrals this year in affluent areas.

Statistically speaking - UVA had more applicants for ED but took fewer than last year. It was not a huge difference but I think dropped the acceptance rate for in state from 30% to 25% or something like that. So maybe there will be more taken in EA or RD.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting about girls admits more v boys. My understanding from both college admissions and our school counselor is that across the board, boys are in more demand. In other words, the schools get plenty of female applicants and will look harder at boys as they need more male applicants than ever before. They won't take someone unqualified but apples to apples, may favor male v female applicants much much more than in past. These schools include T25 and in general, across the board, nationally.

This is because there are fewer and fewer qualified (and motivated) boys every year.

It’s becoming an American crisis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA ED was harder at our school than year’s past.

Our nova public had typical UVA results

Ours didn’t. UVA was way down this year.

Interesting about girls admits more v boys. My understanding from both college admissions and our school counselor is that across the board, boys are in more demand. In other words, the schools get plenty of female applicants and will look harder at boys as they need more male applicants than ever before. They won't take someone unqualified but apples to apples, may favor male v female applicants much much more than in past. These schools include T25 and in general, across the board, nationally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA ED was harder at our school than year’s past.

Our school's UVA admissions was much easier for the girls and basically non existent for boys.

Usually UVA favors girls, along the lines of 3 girls to 2 boys

This year was more than a half dozen girls and 1 boy.

Um maybe because the girls were more qualified? “Favors” lmao

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice took 10% of its class in questbridge.

How do these kids tend to stack up academically? I hate Trump but I don't disagree with him that DEI has gotten out of hand. I am all for breaking a tie or even slightly more than that towards kids who have had fewer opportunities. But "aiming for a target number" is not in the spirit of this...

What are you even talking about? Schools aim for target numbers of football players and target numbers of kids from the DMV and target numbers of cellists and target numbers of kids from congressionally-overrepresented states and target numbers of rural (read: Republican) parts of the country.

What "spirit" are you talking about and is it the spirit of Adam Smith or Milton Friedman and should institutional priorities actually be shaped by the invisible hand of anti-DEI brainwashed mediocrity?

Asking for "these kids" and SMDH

Apples and oranges. You need target numbers for sports, music, etc. so you can have a team, orchestra or whatever else. I don't think there should be targets for race, geography, etc. All things being relatively equal,[i][b] those should be tie breakers. But nothing beyond that. Schools should not be taking a kid several standard deviations below normal just to fulfill these "goals."

Dunning-Kruger here with the self-own!

Genuinely impressed.

Please explain?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice took 10% of its class in questbridge.

How do these kids tend to stack up academically? I hate Trump but I don't disagree with him that DEI has gotten out of hand. I am all for breaking a tie or even slightly more than that towards kids who have had fewer opportunities. But "aiming for a target number" is not in the spirit of this...

What are you even talking about? Schools aim for target numbers of football players and target numbers of kids from the DMV and target numbers of cellists and target numbers of kids from congressionally-overrepresented states and target numbers of rural (read: Republican) parts of the country.

What "spirit" are you talking about and is it the spirit of Adam Smith or Milton Friedman and should institutional priorities actually be shaped by the invisible hand of anti-DEI brainwashed mediocrity?

Asking for "these kids" and SMDH

Apples and oranges. You need target numbers for sports, music, etc. so you can have a team, orchestra or whatever else. I don't think there should be targets for race, geography, etc. All things being relatively equal,[i][b] those should be tie breakers. But nothing beyond that. Schools should not be taking a kid several standard deviations below normal just to fulfill these "goals."

Dunning-Kruger here with the self-own!

Genuinely impressed.