I suspect the poster above is also minority. Lots of asian concerto winners with higher sats were denied. Certainly your kid with the mediocre scores was not the only musician to apply. LOL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too -- interviewing for a different HYPS. Nice kids, reasonably intelligent, but many don't seem to stand out in any way. Could they do the work at an HYPS? Probably -- it's just not that hard to get a B at these schools. Would you find any reason to pull them out of a pile in which they look like 5K other applicants? No.

So maybe it's not zip codes but different definitions of what constitutes a "no hope" application.

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference for you between a standard candidate who could do the work but is otherwise "meh" and one that stands out as some who would be admitted?

Before I answer, let me rephrase your question slightly -- I think it makes more sense to talk about candidates who "could" or "might" be admitted rather than "would" be admitted. I'm not sure that what separates the serious contenders from the admittees relates to differences in the applicants' credentials rather than the demographics of particular applicant pools (or institutional priorities) in particular years.

The short answer is that the kids who stand out are ones who do something interesting and obviously meaningful to them. They've charted their own course to some extent, and are able to articulate how and why. Basically, they come across as thoughtful kids who know what they want, who want something distinctive, and who think creatively/intelligently/strategically about how to get from here to there. At the HYPS level, doing everything you're supposed to do and doing it very, very well generally won't be enough to get you in. You need something else going for you that sets you apart (which won't always be the attributes I've described above -- could be full-pay legacy from a trusted school with the best teacher recs that year).

One of my DCs is a B+, 2000 SAT, student who is presently at an Ivy. What set DC apart was the musicianship (not a string player...millions of those) and a dozen of years crafting the art and playing in philharmonics and symphonies. Summertime committed to the same. No sports, no STEM. This is what stood out and accepted to three Ivies and six other non-Ivies. Denied at none. No way was DC going to 'compete' with the sports and STEM kids. Nor the 2400 SAT and 36 SAT scorers. Nor the kids with 25 AP courses and discoverers of cancer.

DC went with their own person solid and committed strength. That is what got my DC in.

It's called passion.

Actually, sometimes it's called purposeful practice -- which is seen as key to mastery in (m)any field(s). Passion without persistence/discipline/focus/work ethic is less compelling. (So's work ethic without passion -- but that may be harder to detect at this age!). Ideally, you're looking for both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that that kind of story works well for many upper middle class (private school?) kids. It's just as generic as the other parts of the application.

What the privates offer wrt college admissions is not so much advice re packaging/storytelling as insight re which colleges are looking for kids like yours. In my admittedly limited experience, they also do a good job with recs and deadlines and keeping everyone involved in the process on task and on time.

Why wouldn't it work for upper middle class kids?. I basically provided the formula for how to articulate the course you have charted as per 10:13, who said the same thing but was a bit vaguer in advice. Obviously don't sit there and spew off those sentences fill in the blank style, but if you can cover all those points with compelling, personal answers, you will drastically increase you me chances of getting in.

In part because it *is* a formula. And in part because the obstacles are usually fairly trivial/similar (and the ones that are real -- e.g. serious depression -- may send up red flags). Also, there's no way you can know these stories "worked" because you haven't seen the rest of the pool and other parts of the applications (e.g. recs).

I think that the difference between your answer and mine is not primarily the degree of specificity but a focus on where kids put their energy and why in the years leading up to college vs. a focus on how to play the applications game. (I'd have different answers from yours re the latter question as well).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those spitting, swearing, Halloween-hating BLM student protesters must have been a real draw.

I wonder why Caltech didn't have any BLM protests.

Nerd Lives Matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too -- interviewing for a different HYPS. Nice kids, reasonably intelligent, but many don't seem to stand out in any way. Could they do the work at an HYPS? Probably -- it's just not that hard to get a B at these schools. Would you find any reason to pull them out of a pile in which they look like 5K other applicants? No.

So maybe it's not zip codes but different definitions of what constitutes a "no hope" application.

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference for you between a standard candidate who could do the work but is otherwise "meh" and one that stands out as some who would be admitted?

Before I answer, let me rephrase your question slightly -- I think it makes more sense to talk about candidates who "could" or "might" be admitted rather than "would" be admitted. I'm not sure that what separates the serious contenders from the admittees relates to differences in the applicants' credentials rather than the demographics of particular applicant pools (or institutional priorities) in particular years.

The short answer is that the kids who stand out are ones who do something interesting and obviously meaningful to them. They've charted their own course to some extent, and are able to articulate how and why. Basically, they come across as thoughtful kids who know what they want, who want something distinctive, and who think creatively/intelligently/strategically about how to get from here to there. At the HYPS level, doing everything you're supposed to do and doing it very, very well generally won't be enough to get you in. You need something else going for you that sets you apart (which won't always be the attributes I've described above -- could be full-pay legacy from a trusted school with the best teacher recs that year).

One of my DCs is a B+, 2000 SAT, student who is presently at an Ivy. What set DC apart was the musicianship (not a string player...millions of those) and a dozen of years crafting the art and playing in philharmonics and symphonies. Summertime committed to the same. No sports, no STEM. This is what stood out and accepted to three Ivies and six other non-Ivies. Denied at none. No way was DC going to 'compete' with the sports and STEM kids. Nor the 2400 SAT and 36 SAT scorers. Nor the kids with 25 AP courses and discoverers of cancer.

DC went with their own person solid and committed strength. That is what got my DC in.

Any other hooks?

I was disturbed about the Halloween costume/free speech/safe space mess. From what I understand, some powerful folks helped get out statements from the administration that freedom of speech is still taken seriously. So I would let my kid go there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too -- interviewing for a different HYPS. Nice kids, reasonably intelligent, but many don't seem to stand out in any way. Could they do the work at an HYPS? Probably -- it's just not that hard to get a B at these schools. Would you find any reason to pull them out of a pile in which they look like 5K other applicants? No.

So maybe it's not zip codes but different definitions of what constitutes a "no hope" application.

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference for you between a standard candidate who could do the work but is otherwise "meh" and one that stands out as some who would be admitted?

Before I answer, let me rephrase your question slightly -- I think it makes more sense to talk about candidates who "could" or "might" be admitted rather than "would" be admitted. I'm not sure that what separates the serious contenders from the admittees relates to differences in the applicants' credentials rather than the demographics of particular applicant pools (or institutional priorities) in particular years.

The short answer is that the kids who stand out are ones who do something interesting and obviously meaningful to them. They've charted their own course to some extent, and are able to articulate how and why. Basically, they come across as thoughtful kids who know what they want, who want something distinctive, and who think creatively/intelligently/strategically about how to get from here to there. At the HYPS level, doing everything you're supposed to do and doing it very, very well generally won't be enough to get you in. You need something else going for you that sets you apart (which won't always be the attributes I've described above -- could be full-pay legacy from a trusted school with the best teacher recs that year).

One of my DCs is a B+, 2000 SAT, student who is presently at an Ivy. What set DC apart was the musicianship (not a string player...millions of those) and a dozen of years crafting the art and playing in philharmonics and symphonies. Summertime committed to the same. No sports, no STEM. This is what stood out and accepted to three Ivies and six other non-Ivies. Denied at none. No way was DC going to 'compete' with the sports and STEM kids. Nor the 2400 SAT and 36 SAT scorers. Nor the kids with 25 AP courses and discoverers of cancer.

DC went with their own person solid and committed strength. That is what got my DC in.

It's called passion.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that that kind of story works well for many upper middle class (private school?) kids. It's just as generic as the other parts of the application.

What the privates offer wrt college admissions is not so much advice re packaging/storytelling as insight re which colleges are looking for kids like yours. In my admittedly limited experience, they also do a good job with recs and deadlines and keeping everyone involved in the process on task and on time.

Why wouldn't it work for upper middle class kids? I basically provided the formula for how to articulate the course you have charted as per 10:13, who said the same thing but was a bit vaguer in advice. Obviously don't sit there and spew off those sentences fill in the blank style, but if you can cover all those points with compelling, personal answers, you will drastically increase you me chances of getting in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too -- interviewing for a different HYPS. Nice kids, reasonably intelligent, but many don't seem to stand out in any way. Could they do the work at an HYPS? Probably -- it's just not that hard to get a B at these schools. Would you find any reason to pull them out of a pile in which they look like 5K other applicants? No.

So maybe it's not zip codes but different definitions of what constitutes a "no hope" application.

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference for you between a standard candidate who could do the work but is otherwise "meh" and one that stands out as some who would be admitted?

Before I answer, let me rephrase your question slightly -- I think it makes more sense to talk about candidates who "could" or "might" be admitted rather than "would" be admitted. I'm not sure that what separates the serious contenders from the admittees relates to differences in the applicants' credentials rather than the demographics of particular applicant pools (or institutional priorities) in particular years.

The short answer is that the kids who stand out are ones who do something interesting and obviously meaningful to them. They've charted their own course to some extent, and are able to articulate how and why. Basically, they come across as thoughtful kids who know what they want, who want something distinctive, and who think creatively/intelligently/strategically about how to get from here to there. At the HYPS level, doing everything you're supposed to do and doing it very, very well generally won't be enough to get you in. You need something else going for you that sets you apart (which won't always be the attributes I've described above -- could be full-pay legacy from a trusted school with the best teacher recs that year).

One of my DCs is a B+, 2000 SAT, student who is presently at an Ivy. What set DC apart was the musicianship (not a string player...millions of those) and a dozen of years crafting the art and playing in philharmonics and symphonies. Summertime committed to the same. No sports, no STEM. This is what stood out and accepted to three Ivies and six other non-Ivies. Denied at none. No way was DC going to 'compete' with the sports and STEM kids. Nor the 2400 SAT and 36 SAT scorers. Nor the kids with 25 AP courses and discoverers of cancer.

DC went with their own person solid and committed strength. That is what got my DC in.

Prior post is 10:13 commenting on 9:55.

I don't think that that kind of story works well for many upper middle class (private school?) kids. It's just as generic as the other parts of the application.

What the privates offer wrt college admissions is not so much advice re packaging/storytelling as insight re which colleges are looking for kids like yours. In my admittedly limited experience, they also do a good job with recs and deadlines and keeping everyone involved in the process on task and on time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too -- interviewing for a different HYPS. Nice kids, reasonably intelligent, but many don't seem to stand out in any way. Could they do the work at an HYPS? Probably -- it's just not that hard to get a B at these schools. Would you find any reason to pull them out of a pile in which they look like 5K other applicants? No.

So maybe it's not zip codes but different definitions of what constitutes a "no hope" application.

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference for you between a standard candidate who could do the work but is otherwise "meh" and one that stands out as some who would be admitted?

Before I answer, let me rephrase your question slightly -- I think it makes more sense to talk about candidates who "could" or "might" be admitted rather than "would" be admitted. I'm not sure that what separates the serious contenders from the admittees relates to differences in the applicants' credentials rather than the demographics of particular applicant pools (or institutional priorities) in particular years.

The short answer is that the kids who stand out are ones who do something interesting and obviously meaningful to them. They've charted their own course to some extent, and are able to articulate how and why. Basically, they come across as thoughtful kids who know what they want, who want something distinctive, and who think creatively/intelligently/strategically about how to get from here to there. At the HYPS level, doing everything you're supposed to do and doing it very, very well generally won't be enough to get you in. You need something else going for you that sets you apart (which won't always be the attributes I've described above -- could be full-pay legacy from a trusted school with the best teacher recs that year).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too -- interviewing for a different HYPS. Nice kids, reasonably intelligent, but many don't seem to stand out in any way. Could they do the work at an HYPS? Probably -- it's just not that hard to get a B at these schools. Would you find any reason to pull them out of a pile in which they look like 5K other applicants? No.

So maybe it's not zip codes but different definitions of what constitutes a "no hope" application.

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference for you between a standard candidate who could do the work but is otherwise "meh" and one that stands out as some who would be admitted?

Not the PP, but basically it's all about being memorable and unique. Most kids don't have the perspective to differentiate themselves from the thousands of other high-achieving athletes, engineers, musicians, whatever. This is where the process is really unfair, because kids with better counseling have help in spinning a good story about themselves.

You need to have a base level of academic achievement (3.5+, 2100+), but from there on out its about the story you tell. For better or for worse, there's a formula for the best stories: "I am an XXX who aspires to be XXX because of XXX experience and overcoming obstacle XXX. To do this I need to XXX and your school is the perfect fit because XXX. I've taken advantage of XXX opportunities at my high school and have made a lasting impact on XXX, and I want to continue that in college by doing XXX and achieving XXX."

Most kids can't hit all those points, whether it's in their essays, recommendations, or interviews. If you're a legacy or go to an elite school that sends many grads to these schools, you have a leg up because you can tell a much more personal story of why you fit at a particular school.

I wonder how many here bought a lottery ticket when it was a billion dollars?

Same with colleges. You have to be in it to win it.

Just like the lottery, daydream but realistically know that you won't win....but who knows? Same with high reach colleges. People need to just keep everything in perspective and remain realistic (if possible).

Anonymous wrote:Me too -- interviewing for a different HYPS. Nice kids, reasonably intelligent, but many don't seem to stand out in any way. Could they do the work at an HYPS? Probably -- it's just not that hard to get a B at these schools. Would you find any reason to pull them out of a pile in which they look like 5K other applicants? No.

So maybe it's not zip codes but different definitions of what constitutes a "no hope" application.

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference for you between a standard candidate who could do the work but is otherwise "meh" and one that stands out as some who would be admitted?