Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that's an interesting observation. I would say I'm pro 4 years of science, but I do in fact know kids who apply as Classic etc majors who have no intention of majoring in that.

me again - it's funny but I'm not sure that college readers are smart enough to read it this way. I'm pretty much always suprised by how colleges spend and dont spend money: I've seen so many terrible tour guides and I know they have a lot of 24 year old readers with 1 year experience.

I was very surprised by this too. Had a Williams guide who you could not hear at all, and could not get around him in a semi-circle because of snow. DC said the college was “lame.” Couldn’t disagree with his assessment, even though I am a Williams fan.

Then there is Haverford, which actually made half the parents and students at an info session wait 1/2 hour more for a tour — because the tour guide could not handle more than 20.

Then we have Bard, where the student tour guide actually rocked it with 50 people.

This kind of stuff is small change and is just implementing basic principles of event planning. The most professional operations I saw in this regard were Vassar and (surprisingly) Georgetown.

It it is so easy to get this right. Amazing.

Do Bard then. Williams doesn't need to crush it, Bard does.

Exactly. DC said, “it’s like they don’t care.”

Not sure Georgetown or Vassar needed to crush it, either. For the Williams prestige-obsessed, it won’t matter; but it matters to some. Depends who you want to attract, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine was rejected at Harvard, accepted to Princeton and Yale (didn't apply to Stanford or MIT).

Like another poster, did the IB programme and science was one of her SL subjects. So she had honors bio 9th, honors chem 10th, IB Envrio SL 11th (and she also took the AP Enviro exam).

For IB, her SLs were Enviro/Maths/Philosophy and her HLs were English/History/French. She sat for the AP exams for almost every IB class she took, and then also took some actual AP classes as a freshman and sophomore. 4.0 UW, 1540 SAT, URM, classical musician, otherwise unhooked.

URM with a 4.0 and 1540 is hooked. Surely you know this.

That's what "otherwise" means.

A hook in a fish needs to be removed: go fishing.

You can’t be “otherwise” unhooked if you are, in fact, hooked.

Except not all hooks are created equal (legacy barely hooked) and there is such a thing as double and triple hooks. If a single hook guaranteed admission, you would be correct. But it doesn’t; it’s not like being pregnant — so you’re wrong.

DP. Multiple hooks is better than one. But if you’re hooked, you’re hooked. All those stats the PP quoted about their DD cannot be taken out of the context of the student being hooked. If the OP is not similarly hooked, the information is significantly less useful to them.

Some of us have similar hooks so PPs comments were helpful. My kiddo is URM and also has other URM legacies in their class plus nationally ranked URM athletes. PP identified enough to know whether her/his advice applied to individual readers.

Tell it to the PP who thought that URM hook wasn’t worth mentioning - otherwise unhooked? Hooked is hooked.

No, you still don’t get it. Are you pregnant, or not? You can’t be a little pregnant; you can be a little hooked. Merely hooked (athletes aside) still probably means rejection; double and triple hooks means likely (but not definite) acceptance.

I get it, but you are incorrect about “otherwise unhooked.” Hooked is hooked. Of course, double and triple hooked is better than single hooked. However, they are ALL hooked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine was rejected at Harvard, accepted to Princeton and Yale (didn't apply to Stanford or MIT).

Like another poster, did the IB programme and science was one of her SL subjects. So she had honors bio 9th, honors chem 10th, IB Envrio SL 11th (and she also took the AP Enviro exam).

For IB, her SLs were Enviro/Maths/Philosophy and her HLs were English/History/French. She sat for the AP exams for almost every IB class she took, and then also took some actual AP classes as a freshman and sophomore. 4.0 UW, 1540 SAT, URM, classical musician, otherwise unhooked.

URM with a 4.0 and 1540 is hooked. Surely you know this.

That's what "otherwise" means.

You can’t be “otherwise” unhooked if you are, in fact, hooked.

Except not all hooks are created equal (legacy barely hooked) and there is such a thing as double and triple hooks. If a single hook guaranteed admission, you would be correct. But it doesn’t; it’s not like being pregnant — so you’re wrong.

DP. Multiple hooks is better than one. But if you’re hooked, you’re hooked. All those stats the PP quoted about their DD cannot be taken out of the context of the student being hooked. If the OP is not similarly hooked, the information is significantly less useful to them.

Some of us have similar hooks so PPs comments were helpful. My kiddo is URM and also has other URM legacies in their class plus nationally ranked URM athletes. PP identified enough to know whether her/his advice applied to individual readers.

Tell it to the PP who thought that URM hook wasn’t worth mentioning - otherwise unhooked? Hooked is hooked.

No, you still don’t get it. Are you pregnant, or not? You can’t be a little pregnant; you can be a little hooked. Merely hooked (athletes aside) still probably means rejection; double and triple hooks means likely (but not definite) acceptance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does college count the years of foreign language taken in middle school?

The level, not the number of years, are what matter, as well as the remainder of the transcript. Level 3 is sufficient for top schools if the rest of the transcript is sufficiently rigorous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does college count the years of foreign language taken in middle school?

The level, not the number of years, are what matter, as well as the remainder of the transcript. Level 3 is sufficient for top schools if the rest of the transcript is sufficiently rigorous.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not necessarily bad in every case to have fewer than four years of science but in general it’s best to have four years of all core subjects

Anonymous wrote:Does college count the years of foreign language taken in middle school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine was rejected at Harvard, accepted to Princeton and Yale (didn't apply to Stanford or MIT).

Like another poster, did the IB programme and science was one of her SL subjects. So she had honors bio 9th, honors chem 10th, IB Envrio SL 11th (and she also took the AP Enviro exam).

For IB, her SLs were Enviro/Maths/Philosophy and her HLs were English/History/French. She sat for the AP exams for almost every IB class she took, and then also took some actual AP classes as a freshman and sophomore. 4.0 UW, 1540 SAT, URM, classical musician, otherwise unhooked.

URM with a 4.0 and 1540 is hooked. Surely you know this.

That's what "otherwise" means.

You can’t be “otherwise” unhooked if you are, in fact, hooked.

Except not all hooks are created equal (legacy barely hooked) and there is such a thing as double and triple hooks. If a single hook guaranteed admission, you would be correct. But it doesn’t; it’s not like being pregnant — so you’re wrong.

DP. Multiple hooks is better than one. But if you’re hooked, you’re hooked. All those stats the PP quoted about their DD cannot be taken out of the context of the student being hooked. If the OP is not similarly hooked, the information is significantly less useful to them.

Some of us have similar hooks so PPs comments were helpful. My kiddo is URM and also has other URM legacies in their class plus nationally ranked URM athletes. PP identified enough to know whether her/his advice applied to individual readers.

Tell it to the PP who thought that URM hook wasn’t worth mentioning - otherwise unhooked? Hooked is hooked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine was rejected at Harvard, accepted to Princeton and Yale (didn't apply to Stanford or MIT).

Like another poster, did the IB programme and science was one of her SL subjects. So she had honors bio 9th, honors chem 10th, IB Envrio SL 11th (and she also took the AP Enviro exam).

For IB, her SLs were Enviro/Maths/Philosophy and her HLs were English/History/French. She sat for the AP exams for almost every IB class she took, and then also took some actual AP classes as a freshman and sophomore. 4.0 UW, 1540 SAT, URM, classical musician, otherwise unhooked.

URM with a 4.0 and 1540 is hooked. Surely you know this.

That's what "otherwise" means.

You can’t be “otherwise” unhooked if you are, in fact, hooked.

Except not all hooks are created equal (legacy barely hooked) and there is such a thing as double and triple hooks. If a single hook guaranteed admission, you would be correct. But it doesn’t; it’s not like being pregnant — so you’re wrong.

DP. Multiple hooks is better than one. But if you’re hooked, you’re hooked. All those stats the PP quoted about their DD cannot be taken out of the context of the student being hooked. If the OP is not similarly hooked, the information is significantly less useful to them.

Some of us have similar hooks so PPs comments were helpful. My kiddo is URM and also has other URM legacies in their class plus nationally ranked URM athletes. PP identified enough to know whether her/his advice applied to individual readers.

Tell it to the PP who thought that URM hook wasn’t worth mentioning - otherwise unhooked? Hooked is hooked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine was rejected at Harvard, accepted to Princeton and Yale (didn't apply to Stanford or MIT).

Like another poster, did the IB programme and science was one of her SL subjects. So she had honors bio 9th, honors chem 10th, IB Envrio SL 11th (and she also took the AP Enviro exam).

For IB, her SLs were Enviro/Maths/Philosophy and her HLs were English/History/French. She sat for the AP exams for almost every IB class she took, and then also took some actual AP classes as a freshman and sophomore. 4.0 UW, 1540 SAT, URM, classical musician, otherwise unhooked.

URM with a 4.0 and 1540 is hooked. Surely you know this.

That's what "otherwise" means.

You can’t be “otherwise” unhooked if you are, in fact, hooked.

Except not all hooks are created equal (legacy barely hooked) and there is such a thing as double and triple hooks. If a single hook guaranteed admission, you would be correct. But it doesn’t; it’s not like being pregnant — so you’re wrong.

DP. Multiple hooks is better than one. But if you’re hooked, you’re hooked. All those stats the PP quoted about their DD cannot be taken out of the context of the student being hooked. If the OP is not similarly hooked, the information is significantly less useful to them.

Some of us have similar hooks so PPs comments were helpful. My kiddo is URM and also has other URM legacies in their class plus nationally ranked URM athletes. PP identified enough to know whether her/his advice applied to individual readers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine was rejected at Harvard, accepted to Princeton and Yale (didn't apply to Stanford or MIT).

Like another poster, did the IB programme and science was one of her SL subjects. So she had honors bio 9th, honors chem 10th, IB Envrio SL 11th (and she also took the AP Enviro exam).

For IB, her SLs were Enviro/Maths/Philosophy and her HLs were English/History/French. She sat for the AP exams for almost every IB class she took, and then also took some actual AP classes as a freshman and sophomore. 4.0 UW, 1540 SAT, URM, classical musician, otherwise unhooked.

URM with a 4.0 and 1540 is hooked. Surely you know this.

That's what "otherwise" means.

You can’t be “otherwise” unhooked if you are, in fact, hooked.

Except not all hooks are created equal (legacy barely hooked) and there is such a thing as double and triple hooks. If a single hook guaranteed admission, you would be correct. But it doesn’t; it’s not like being pregnant — so you’re wrong.

DP. Multiple hooks is better than one. But if you’re hooked, you’re hooked. All those stats the PP quoted about their DD cannot be taken out of the context of the student being hooked. If the OP is not similarly hooked, the information is significantly less useful to them.

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, since there are IB posters without 4 years of science: there are lots of international school systems where less than 4 years of science (or another core subject) is more or less the norm. International enrollment is going up significantly in the next decade to counteract the demographic cliff, even at elite schools. Maybe this will encourage AOs to become more flexible with these “requirements.”