Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

But they are not from MoCo, DC, or Fairfax. Those are minority mining districts (term I learned working in admissions).

Yes. WL/rejected at everything above a direct match school.

Happily will attend one of the schools that admitted him.

At DC’s school, a classmate applied to only T25 (8 schools), Pitt and UMD. Classmate was rejected or waitlisted at the T25 schools, accepted to Pitt and UMD. Test optional, high GPA, strong ECs, URM, not a great writer according to my DC. Classmate was devastated. Saw other classmates getting accepted to programs like BC and other highly ranked schools. DC believes the essays hurt classmates’ application.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. “Safeties” are not right below the top 20. Almost everyone needs to apply to at least one college that accepts more than it rejects. Being >75th percentile in GPA and SAT doesn’t guarantee you admission.

Some of those colleges may yield protect so for high stats kids, they could get flat out rejected.

VCU/George Mason/Penn State/UDelaware are not “yield protecting” anyone. You just may find such placed beneath you. What you call yield protection I call lack of engagement with the college.

? PP here.. Not at all. My one DC will probably apply to those schools. My other DC goes to UMD.

But, a lot of colleges do yield protect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The year before the Supreme Court ruling, I heard of many high stat Asian and white kids getting shut out. I heard of many kids who got shut out while less qualified URMs getting all the top school spots. This was upsetting for many. Have not heard of any high stat kids getting shut out this year. In fact, this year kids who I would not even consider high stats are getting into the better colleges.

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

The are not over represented. It reflects the applicant pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course, ALL THE TIME! Are you new here? There’s NEVER a guarantee of getting into a top 20, no matter how high the stats. And if the child is an UMC white kid from the suburbs who isn’t a recruited athlete, it’s more likely that they won’t get in.

Most of the kids at T20s ARE UMC white kids from the suburbs.

The recruited athlete thing is overblown given the limited roster spots, but guess what? Most of those T20 athlete roster spots go to UMC white kids too!

Not necessarily. DP here.

OP, until the last couple of years, qualified applicants did not apply to all T20s - now, it is common place, and there are videos by students who do so (and get accepted to most/all). It seems students feel that they now have to apply to all T20s, not just their select few. So you may not be getting accurate information, even if they applicant was accepted, they may or may not have applied to all, as students currently do .

Another DP. White and Asian are the majorities by far at T20, but you seem to be suggesting that somehiw URMs have more acceptances overall? The only way to consider the amount of overall acceptances is anecdotally, and those echo the admitted stats. Kids getting into several T20s are also heavily white and Asian. If you go on these campuses, you really see how much of a discrepancy there is.

because most who apply are UMC white/asian students.

That's the fallacy of "diversity" in college. The applicant pool does not look like the demographics of the whole population, so college won't be able to reflect the diversity of the population as a whole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. “Safeties” are not right below the top 20. Almost everyone needs to apply to at least one college that accepts more than it rejects. Being >75th percentile in GPA and SAT doesn’t guarantee you admission.

Some of those colleges may yield protect so for high stats kids, they could get flat out rejected.

VCU/George Mason/Penn State/UDelaware are not “yield protecting” anyone. You just may find such placed beneath you. What you call yield protection I call lack of engagement with the college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our private top stats kids who do not get in REA/ED, end up applying to about 75% of the top 20. At least this year.

Why? The schools are so different.

This. People are prestige-obsessed. They’ll spam the entire T25 just to maximize the chance of having bragging rights. Never mind they could have a better experience and equal or better outcomes significantly further down the rankings.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]LOL. “Safeties” are not right below the top 20. Almost everyone needs to apply to at least one college that accepts more than it rejects. Being >75th percentile in GPA and SAT doesn’t guarantee you admission. [/quote]
Some of those colleges may yield protect so for high stats kids, they could get flat out rejected.[/quote]

It's your job to convince a "safety school" that you actually want to attend. Just like it's the school's job to manage yield and keep it high.
If you do your job, you will most likely get accepted at your safety, same for targets


[/quote]
This is true but just ridiculous. Imagine employers not trying to hire the best candidate because they don’t think the person will accept. The high stats kids applied so obviously they are interested. Assuming they are not and making them do extra work is just wrong. [/quote]

Why? Kids apply to 10+, some to 20+ schools. Very few apply to only 1 and done. So schools know that not every kid will attend if accepted. By definition, if it's "your safety", you are hoping to not attend---you want some reaches and targets to come thru. So if you have 1580/10AP/4.0UW and are applying to a school that accepts 55%, 50% is 1400 and 3.6UW, they most likely think you will not attend. They know that from previous years. Their goal is to have X students as freshman in the fall. Their goal is to obtain ALL of them by offering admission thru ED/EA/RD. They do NOT want to go to the WL. Why? Because come May 1 majority of kids select where they are going and don't look back. Even if they get an offer from a WL.

Also, if an employer determines you might just be interviewing with them to boost your salary at your current job (as negotiating tool), then they might just select the "next best candidate". Why? Because they are interviewing because they actually need a person to do THAT job.

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Anonymous wrote:At our private top stats kids who do not get in REA/ED, end up applying to about 75% of the top 20. At least this year.

Why? The schools are so different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The year before the Supreme Court ruling, I heard of many high stat Asian and white kids getting shut out. I heard of many kids who got shut out while less qualified URMs getting all the top school spots. This was upsetting for many. Have not heard of any high stat kids getting shut out this year. In fact, this year kids who I would not even consider high stats are getting into the better colleges.

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

+10,000

Yes. Going to Wisconsin.