Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And sadly, schools that cutoff at the 3.9 level are going to miss a lot of great kids. Who says that a 3.9 kid at a top private has learned more than a 3.2 kid. At our school a lot of the 3.2 kids are just as smart, and pretty hardworking, but kinder, more passionate, less self-absorbed and more interesting than some of the 3.9s. This is not to criticize those at the tippy top, but rather to sway that a lot of that energy gets lost in a highly stats driven admissions process. My husband went to an Ivy, and he wonders if it would be as interesting an experience now.

We were discussing this at work the other day. We work with/hire lots of young, ambitious college graduates, and have been completely underwhelmed by the HYP graduates that we've been seeing lately. They have been far outperformed by the graduates of the "lesser" schools. This is a small sample, but it belies the narrative that only "outstanding, hardworking, total package" kids get into HYP. We finally concluded that these schools admit kids that are good at school, and that doesn't necessarily translate to the real world. YMMV

Totally agree. We consistently have HYP interens and young hires and I'm consistently underwhelmed by their performance. They are "smart'" but clearly not the go-getters and often lack common sense and good judgment and have a total sense of entitlement. We have started to look for others at top tier or two tier schools and have had much more success. I think a lot of these soon to be graduates are about to have a rude awakening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Surprisingly (to me), the unhooked, non-recruited kids who did the best were from public school while the unhooked kids at Big 3s did less well."

I think GPAs have a lot to do with that. Some of the local privates, Sidwell Friends just to name one of them, are notoriously tight in their grading while grade inflation nationally in high schools is pretty common. A more typical profile for many kids applying from a deflationary grade environment is to have high test scores that do not have the expected correlation with their GPAs. For a long time, the privates have relied on their reputation with colleges, figuring that their recognized rigor would compensate for lower GPAs. That approach no longer works as much, and either the privates have to do a much better job of selling their curriculum and how it prepares their graduates for college or join the crowd and start inflating their grading policies.

Agree with your assessment of the problem; hope that schools in this situation start ramping up the PR effort, rather than dumbing down the curriculum or pushing grade inflation.

I disagree with the assessment. Colleges have regional admissions folks who are very familiar with the grading and rigor at each school in their assigned regions. Many colleges even reweight applicants' GPAs using their own proprietary weights, based on their knowledge of the grading and rigor at different schools. It would be wrong to think that colleges put a B from Sidwell on the same level as a B from Easy A HS.

There's no need for PR efforts to provide regional admissions reps with this info they already have. To the extent they're taking a smaller share of area privates' graduating classes, I'm guessing this is because of increased interest in having different types of students, or something else. But I don't know for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3.8, 2320, various ec's but nothing to knock your socks off. no hooks.

What are hooks?

Ok I googled http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1921183/

So legacy, affirmative action, maybe champion athlete?

Does legacy even help these days at the ivies, I though GWB kind of soured that?

15-year Harvard interviewer here. It helps. It's a mixed bag, because every year, some of the top applicants, by any measure, are legacies. Also every year, there are kids who get in whose record is just a bit below the top tier of applicants, and those kids wouldn't have gotten in without an alumni parent.

Of course being a legacy helps. HYP et al accepts ~ 6% of applicants (1 out of 10) from the general pool but the acceptance rate rises to ~33% (3 out of 10) for legacies. Big difference.

You're assuming the legacy qualifications mirror the qualifications of the applicant pool. Not saying it does or does not, but unless you can compare the two it's hard to speculate how much of a difference it really is.

I've heard from friends who interview for some of these schools that the legacy pool generally is of higher quality than the general applicant pool. Which makes sense considering these are the children if Ivy Leaguers who grew up with all the advantages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3.8, 2320, various ec's but nothing to knock your socks off. no hooks.

What are hooks?

Ok I googled http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1921183/

So legacy, affirmative action, maybe champion athlete?

Does legacy even help these days at the ivies, I though GWB kind of soured that?

15-year Harvard interviewer here. It helps. It's a mixed bag, because every year, some of the top applicants, by any measure, are legacies. Also every year, there are kids who get in whose record is just a bit below the top tier of applicants, and those kids wouldn't have gotten in without an alumni parent.

Of course being a legacy helps. HYP et al accepts ~ 6% of applicants (1 out of 10) from the general pool but the acceptance rate rises to ~33% (3 out of 10) for legacies. Big difference.

You're assuming the legacy qualifications mirror the qualifications of the applicant pool. Not saying it does or does not, but unless you can compare the two it's hard to speculate how much of a difference it really is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3.8, 2320, various ec's but nothing to knock your socks off. no hooks.

What are hooks?

Ok I googled http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1921183/

So legacy, affirmative action, maybe champion athlete?

Does legacy even help these days at the ivies, I though GWB kind of soured that?

15-year Harvard interviewer here. It helps. It's a mixed bag, because every year, some of the top applicants, by any measure, are legacies. Also every year, there are kids who get in whose record is just a bit below the top tier of applicants, and those kids wouldn't have gotten in without an alumni parent.

Of course being a legacy helps. HYP et al accepts ~ 6% of applicants (1 out of 10) from the general pool but the acceptance rate rises to ~33% (3 out of 10) for legacies. Big difference.

Anonymous wrote:"Surprisingly (to me), the unhooked, non-recruited kids who did the best were from public school while the unhooked kids at Big 3s did less well."

I think GPAs have a lot to do with that. Some of the local privates, Sidwell Friends just to name one of them, are notoriously tight in their grading while grade inflation nationally in high schools is pretty common. A more typical profile for many kids applying from a deflationary grade environment is to have high test scores that do not have the expected correlation with their GPAs. For a long time, the privates have relied on their reputation with colleges, figuring that their recognized rigor would compensate for lower GPAs. That approach no longer works as much, and either the privates have to do a much better job of selling their curriculum and how it prepares their graduates for college or join the crowd and start inflating their grading policies.

Agree with your assessment of the problem; hope that schools in this situation start ramping up the PR effort, rather than dumbing down the curriculum or pushing grade inflation.

"Surprisingly (to me), the unhooked, non-recruited kids who did the best were from public school while the unhooked kids at Big 3s did less well."

I think GPAs have a lot to do with that. Some of the local privates, Sidwell Friends just to name one of them, are notoriously tight in their grading while grade inflation nationally in high schools is pretty common. A more typical profile for many kids applying from a deflationary grade environment is to have high test scores that do not have the expected correlation with their GPAs. For a long time, the privates have relied on their reputation with colleges, figuring that their recognized rigor would compensate for lower GPAs. That approach no longer works as much, and either the privates have to do a much better job of selling their curriculum and how it prepares their graduates for college or join the crowd and start inflating their grading policies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3.8, 2320, various ec's but nothing to knock your socks off. no hooks.

What are hooks?

Ok I googled http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1921183/

So legacy, affirmative action, maybe champion athlete?

Does legacy even help these days at the ivies, I though GWB kind of soured that?

15-year Harvard interviewer here. It helps. It's a mixed bag, because every year, some of the top applicants, by any measure, are legacies. Also every year, there are kids who get in whose record is just a bit below the top tier of applicants, and those kids wouldn't have gotten in without an alumni parent.

10/48/14:20 here - I think we agree. Especially on the part that it's not a tragedy if you don't get into an Ivy. I've read the Price of Admission, great book.

A few things.

First, it is STILL TRUE that the hardest thing about the Ivies is getting in. To excel you have to be very bright and very hard working. But to do fine -- B pluses and the occasional A minus -- a very bright kid who is good at cramming, or a more modestly talented kid who works their a-- off, will suffice.

Second, of course there are wonderful 3.2 kids who don't get into the Ivies. Many of them then probably crush at their excellent college/university and get into Harvard Law School or Stanford Medical School. It is not a tragedy when a kid doesn't get into an Ivy or a particular Ivy -- it can motivate them to excel to show the school that rejected them was wrong, for example. And this country has an abundance of very fine colleges and universities. But the admissions people need to pick somehow, and grades and scores are a reasonable way to do it.

Third, yes admissions people know who the resume-builders are. "The thicker the file, the thicker the student" is cliched admission saying for a reason. The reason why it may appear to work is probably that (a) many of the compulsive extra-curricular participators are also terrific students; or (b) students with the parents who hired the consultants either have legacy status or the parents have such wealth that the colleges are letting them in for development purposes (Duke is famous for the latter -- read the book "The Price of Admission"). The "look at all my clubs" thing is why colleges (and college counselors) advise trying to specialize and develop and display a sincere passion.

Anonymous wrote:And sadly, schools that cutoff at the 3.9 level are going to miss a lot of great kids. Who says that a 3.9 kid at a top private has learned more than a 3.2 kid. At our school a lot of the 3.2 kids are just as smart, and pretty hardworking, but kinder, more passionate, less self-absorbed and more interesting than some of the 3.9s. This is not to criticize those at the tippy top, but rather to sway that a lot of that energy gets lost in a highly stats driven admissions process. My husband went to an Ivy, and he wonders if it would be as interesting an experience now.

10:48 again. I think it's pretty unfair to the kids who are pulling in 3.9s, to call most of them uninteresting, self-absorbed and unkind. Some of these 3.9 kids are just incredibly smart. Some of these 3.9 kids are also more motivated, and better able to keep future goals in mind, than the average teenager.

The criticism of 3.9 GPAs also misses the bigger picture. These days, to get into the very top colleges, you need a 3.9 GPA and ECs that show your selflessness, lack of self-absorption and passion. And essays that also demonstrate your passion, self-awareness, kindness, and all the rest. Why? Colleges get tons and tons of 3.9 applicants. The very top colleges get over 30,000 applicants per year, and most of these are very qualified including 3.9 GPAs. ECs give admissions offers a way to reduce the stack of 30,000 applications. Also, colleges don't actually want a class full of kids who are glued to their desks. They know the kids who live in the library are not going to be leaders or innovators.

Sure, there are definitely resume-builders out there who just want to be SGA president because it will help with admissions. (I digress, but DH went to Whitman in the 1980s and they had a Young Executives Club where every single member had the title of Vice President. Guess why?) It's the admissions officer's job to distinguish between the resume builders and the kid who is really passionate about issues. College ADs claim they can spot the packaged applicant a mile off, which I kind of doubt, but let's hope they get most of the essays that were written by a consultant, and most of the bogus-looking ECs.

Anonymous wrote:And sadly, schools that cutoff at the 3.9 level are going to miss a lot of great kids. Who says that a 3.9 kid at a top private has learned more than a 3.2 kid. At our school a lot of the 3.2 kids are just as smart, and pretty hardworking, but kinder, more passionate, less self-absorbed and more interesting than some of the 3.9s. This is not to criticize those at the tippy top, but rather to sway that a lot of that energy gets lost in a highly stats driven admissions process. My husband went to an Ivy, and he wonders if it would be as interesting an experience now.

We were discussing this at work the other day. We work with/hire lots of young, ambitious college graduates, and have been completely underwhelmed by the HYP graduates that we've been seeing lately. They have been far outperformed by the graduates of the "lesser" schools. This is a small sample, but it belies the narrative that only "outstanding, hardworking, total package" kids get into HYP. We finally concluded that these schools admit kids that are good at school, and that doesn't necessarily translate to the real world. YMMV

Anonymous wrote:And sadly, schools that cutoff at the 3.9 level are going to miss a lot of great kids. Who says that a 3.9 kid at a top private has learned more than a 3.2 kid. At our school a lot of the 3.2 kids are just as smart, and pretty hardworking, but kinder, more passionate, less self-absorbed and more interesting than some of the 3.9s. This is not to criticize those at the tippy top, but rather to sway that a lot of that energy gets lost in a highly stats driven admissions process. My husband went to an Ivy, and he wonders if it would be as interesting an experience now.

+100

And sadly, schools that cutoff at the 3.9 level are going to miss a lot of great kids. Who says that a 3.9 kid at a top private has learned more than a 3.2 kid. At our school a lot of the 3.2 kids are just as smart, and pretty hardworking, but kinder, more passionate, less self-absorbed and more interesting than some of the 3.9s. This is not to criticize those at the tippy top, but rather to sway that a lot of that energy gets lost in a highly stats driven admissions process. My husband went to an Ivy, and he wonders if it would be as interesting an experience now.

Anonymous wrote:10:48 again. Harvard used to send out a press release right after the regular decision announcements, saying they rejected XXX number of perfect SATs. The figure was always over 1,000. I haven't seen this in a few years. Either I haven't noticed or they stopped doing it.

On the other hand, I know several unhooked kids who got into top five USNWR schools with SATs around 2100 and fabulous ECs. The ECs were accomplishments at a national level, plus great recs and great essays--these kids did well on the whole package. Surprisingly (to me), the unhooked, non-recruited kids who did the best were from public school while the unhooked kids at Big 3s did less well. (Caveat emptor! small sample size of DC's acquaintances at publics and privates!) The common denominator among the kids we know who got into the very top colleges were GPAs of 3.9 or 4.0 so it seems true (to me at least) that colleges are looking for extremely hard workers--at the top USNWR schools, you just wouldn't survive the first semester if you weren't academically inclined and a very hard worker.

Also, it's a crap shoot. You just have to accept the random nature of part of this process. We feel our DC was very lucky, as much as anything else. This is very tough on the kids who worked like crazy throughout high school, and reasonably expect that the 3.9 GPA should be rewarded with acceptance at their first choice schools. They do usually get into great schools, but not necessarily HYP.

So many, many great candidates, so little, limited space.