Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

First of all, I am not the poster who said CMU doesn't take academically stronger girls. Second, my daughter is the not the only one who got rejected. There were several other boys & girls with excellent academic & extra-curriculars rejected by CMU. Those who got in DO NOT exhibit anything better by any measure. Do you even have a kid at TJ?

NP here. My very high stats TJ DD was waitlisted by CMU this year. I just asked her if her classmates who were accepted are stronger. She said that several of her friends are going to CMU, and they are strong but she doesn't want to compare them to herself and say anything negative about them - because they are her friends. With regard to other classmates who were accepted and are not her friends, she doesn't know enough about them to perform any meaningful comparison. I wonder how you know enough information in order to compare them to your daughter. Admission results are a lottery. I'm sure your DD was accepted by other great colleges where some of her strong classmates were rejected.

I am not the PP, but I have a DC in high school and he knows enough about his friends - their accomplishments, ECs, strengths are not at all secrets.. except my DC wouldn't know if they extrapolated anything in their essays. Also, the PP didn't say anything negative about those who got in.

Your DC knows something about his friends but definitely not everything. I had hard times keeping track of my own DD’s accomplishments, she participated in so many activities and competitions. Can’t imagine also counting her classmates’ accomplishments in order to compare who is “stronger”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

First of all, I am not the poster who said CMU doesn't take academically stronger girls. Second, my daughter is the not the only one who got rejected. There were several other boys & girls with excellent academic & extra-curriculars rejected by CMU. Those who got in DO NOT exhibit anything better by any measure. Do you even have a kid at TJ?

NP here. My very high stats TJ DD was waitlisted by CMU this year. I just asked her if her classmates who were accepted are stronger. She said that several of her friends are going to CMU, and they are strong but she doesn't want to compare them to herself and say anything negative about them - because they are her friends. With regard to other classmates who were accepted and are not her friends, she doesn't know enough about them to perform any meaningful comparison. I wonder how you know enough information in order to compare them to your daughter. Admission results are a lottery. I'm sure your DD was accepted by other great colleges where some of her strong classmates were rejected.

I am not the PP, but I have a DC in high school and he knows enough about his friends - their accomplishments, ECs, strengths are not at all secrets.. except my DC wouldn't know if they extrapolated anything in their essays. Also, the PP didn't say anything negative about those who got in.

Your DC knows something about his friends but definitely not everything. I had hard times keeping track of my own DD’s accomplishments, she participated in so many activities and competitions. Can’t imagine also counting her classmates’ accomplishments in order to compare who is “stronger”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

First of all, I am not the poster who said CMU doesn't take academically stronger girls. Second, my daughter is the not the only one who got rejected. There were several other boys & girls with excellent academic & extra-curriculars rejected by CMU. Those who got in DO NOT exhibit anything better by any measure. Do you even have a kid at TJ?

NP here. My very high stats TJ DD was waitlisted by CMU this year. I just asked her if her classmates who were accepted are stronger. She said that several of her friends are going to CMU, and they are strong but she doesn't want to compare them to herself and say anything negative about them - because they are her friends. With regard to other classmates who were accepted and are not her friends, she doesn't know enough about them to perform any meaningful comparison. I wonder how you know enough information in order to compare them to your daughter. Admission results are a lottery. I'm sure your DD was accepted by other great colleges where some of her strong classmates were rejected.

I am not the PP, but I have a DC in high school and he knows enough about his friends - their accomplishments, ECs, strengths are not at all secrets.. except my DC wouldn't know if they extrapolated anything in their essays. Also, the PP didn't say anything negative about those who got in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

Yes, seriously. I don't even know how to interpret someone not getting into a school other than "the committee found their application less strong than those of the kids they admitted." At selective schools, even a very strong applicant can be less strong than many other kids.

If you really think all the kids that get accepted to top schools are THE STRONGEST of those that applied, you must be delusional.

NP here. Those accepted are not necessarily “the strongest” or “stronger” than those who aren’t accepted. Once a student has certain grades, test scores, etc. they are deemed qualified and viable candidates. The committee is then looking at other things. Maybe one student wrote a particularly compelling essay. Maybe another has a unique extra curricular that impressed the committee. Another one might fill a certain demographic or talent the school is looking for. Point is, a school could fill their class several times over with qualified applicants but they don’t have room for them all. Over 75% of applicants to top schools are “top” candidates. I wouldn’t call one better than another. Someone with a 1590 and 4.0 is not a “better” candidate than someone with a 1550 and 4.0. Academically they are the same assuming equal coursework.
Some just fill the schools’ needs or wants while others are just one of many amazing applicants.

This is exactly right and it is also what I was saying. "The strongest candidates" - ie the ones who are accepted - are the ones who are qualified on the basis of test scores and grades (which are not necessarily higher than the rejected candidates) AND have whatever other things the school is looking for (extracurriculars, demographic, talent, geography, etc).

TJ mom is just mad that her precious DD didn't have those "other" things CMU wanted so she thinks the process is unfair, waaah.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

First of all, I am not the poster who said CMU doesn't take academically stronger girls. Second, my daughter is the not the only one who got rejected. There were several other boys & girls with excellent academic & extra-curriculars rejected by CMU. Those who got in DO NOT exhibit anything better by any measure. Do you even have a kid at TJ?

NP here. My very high stats TJ DD was waitlisted by CMU this year. I just asked her if her classmates who were accepted are stronger. She said that several of her friends are going to CMU, and they are strong but she doesn't want to compare them to herself and say anything negative about them - because they are her friends. With regard to other classmates who were accepted and are not her friends, she doesn't know enough about them to perform any meaningful comparison. I wonder how you know enough information in order to compare them to your daughter. Admission results are a lottery. I'm sure your DD was accepted by other great colleges where some of her strong classmates were rejected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

First of all, I am not the poster who said CMU doesn't take academically stronger girls. Second, my daughter is the not the only one who got rejected. There were several other boys & girls with excellent academic & extra-curriculars rejected by CMU. Those who got in DO NOT exhibit anything better by any measure. Do you even have a kid at TJ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

Yes, seriously. I don't even know how to interpret someone not getting into a school other than "the committee found their application less strong than those of the kids they admitted." At selective schools, even a very strong applicant can be less strong than many other kids.

If you really think all the kids that get accepted to top schools are THE STRONGEST of those that applied, you must be delusional.

NP here. Those accepted are not necessarily “the strongest” or “stronger” than those who aren’t accepted. Once a student has certain grades, test scores, etc. they are deemed qualified and viable candidates. The committee is then looking at other things. Maybe one student wrote a particularly compelling essay. Maybe another has a unique extra curricular that impressed the committee. Another one might fill a certain demographic or talent the school is looking for. Point is, a school could fill their class several times over with qualified applicants but they don’t have room for them all. Over 75% of applicants to top schools are “top” candidates. I wouldn’t call one better than another. Someone with a 1590 and 4.0 is not a “better” candidate than someone with a 1550 and 4.0. Academically they are the same assuming equal coursework.
Some just fill the schools’ needs or wants while others are just one of many amazing applicants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

Yes, seriously. I don't even know how to interpret someone not getting into a school other than "the committee found their application less strong than those of the kids they admitted." At selective schools, even a very strong applicant can be less strong than many other kids.

If you really think all the kids that get accepted to top schools are THE STRONGEST of those that applied, you must be delusional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following - DD is interested in Economics and Statistics

My guy is starting his second year there in econ and he loves it. That said, they really do believe it's "in the work" and he says there is a fair amount of stress. In terms of admissions, he had been urged by his HS to apply to some Ivies and Chicago, so you have a sense of where he might theoretically have been, but he did not get into any of them. That said, CMU econ is not the impossible-to-get-into program that CS is.

One more thing - the campus is very diverse, and by diverse, I mean it runs from east Asian, to south Asian, and back, with some white along the way. My guy hits two or three of those metrics and is fine with that, but some of the middle-class white families I grew up with decades ago would have found CMU's culture to be a bridge too far, back then.

First paragraph right-on, bolded utterly useless and unnecessary.

My white DD just came back from a summer program at CMU and she loved how international it was. She said everyone seemed fluent in another language and all the local restaurants were ethnic-oriented. It’s probably not a raucous party scene like you would find at a big state school, but she liked it there.

Was this the CS summer program? My DS (rising 11th grade) applied to the AI program, but was rejected. He might reapply next summer? What were her stats if yiu don’t mind sharing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

Yes, seriously. I don't even know how to interpret someone not getting into a school other than "the committee found their application less strong than those of the kids they admitted." At selective schools, even a very strong applicant can be less strong than many other kids.

If you really think all the kids that get accepted to top schools are THE STRONGEST of those that applied, you must be delusional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

First of all, I am not the poster who said CMU doesn't take academically stronger girls. Second, my daughter is the not the only one who got rejected. There were several other boys & girls with excellent academic & extra-curriculars rejected by CMU. Those who got in DO NOT exhibit anything better by any measure. Do you even have a kid at TJ?

Really, you read their essays and rec letters?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

Yes, seriously. I don't even know how to interpret someone not getting into a school other than "the committee found their application less strong than those of the kids they admitted." At selective schools, even a very strong applicant can be less strong than many other kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cmu.edu/ira/CDS/pdf/cds_2021_22/cds2021-c-first-time-first-year-admissions.pdf

19878 boys applied, 2122 admitted = 10.7%
13018 girls applied, 2331 admitted = 17.9%

Stop crying about how they don’t want girls.

Are you even reading what is being said in this thread? NO-ONE said CMU doesn't want girls. Everyone agrees CMU tries to have the 50-50 ratio. All the PP said was CMU seem to pick girls who are academically STRONG but leave out those who are STRONGER. It's not hard to understand.

Such claims are stupid, and only reflect the butthurt of people whose kid got denied. 89% of the kids admitted are in the top tenth of their class, 45% had a 4.0 gpa, 94% had SAT over 1400. They are not rejecting stronger kids. What is happening is the same thing that happens at every very selective school - for every strongly qualified applicant admitted, a large number of strongly qualified kids are rejected. What should not be hard to understand is this: the applicants who were admitted were stronger in some way that was important to the admissions committee than the applicants who were rejected. Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400.

My kid got waitlisted in RD from TJ and eventually rejected. 1590 SAT (one sitting), >4.6 GPA, Female, TJ, not one-dimensional at all, several national level awards. I am definitely not going to buy your "Better extracurriculars, less one-dimensional, more interesting essay, better high school, any number of other factors come into play when you're comparing two kids with a 3.8 to 4.0 gpa and SAT scores over 1400."

You are making my point for me - rejected mom is butthurt, and is casting around for spurious reasons it was "unfair".

CM, like any other very selective school, is evaluating thousands of kids just like yours, all of whom have great test scores and grades. For every kid who got accepted, there were five kids just like yours who got rejected. They had to make fine distinctions between very similar applicants, and clearly they found another kid stronger than your kid. You will never know their reasons for that decisions, but they were certainly not saying "we don't want high-achieving girls" as stupid people in this thread are claiming.

I totally understand that you don't think your kid is less one-dimensional and interesting than other kids, but they did.

I dont care how you frame it - "butthurt" or whatever nonsense. As you yourself said "You will never know their reasons for that decisions", so saying " one-dimensional and uninteresting than other kids" is just plain stupid.

It's much less stupid than your argument that "they excluded my daughter because they are deliberately excluding academically stronger girls in favor of academically weaker girls for some inexplicable reason".

The facts speak for themselves. Your kid didn't get in because the committee found the totality of her application less strong than that of the kids they admitted. Your kid was not one of the 2331 strongest applicants out of 13,018 applicants. Your kid may not even have been in the top 17.9% even on purely academic grounds.

First of all, I am not the poster who said CMU doesn't take academically stronger girls. Second, my daughter is the not the only one who got rejected. There were several other boys & girls with excellent academic & extra-curriculars rejected by CMU. Those who got in DO NOT exhibit anything better by any measure. Do you even have a kid at TJ?