If you’ve seen many of thousands of TikTok’s interviewing kids on campus about stats, they’re very run of the mill. Or a dubious “I don’t remember”. BS

Lots of kids with good not great stats. 3.9. 1530.

Then urm and fencer. Or crew. Or questbridge.

Their EC are usually boring.

When AO say they could fill the class 3x over, that’s for sure.

Anonymous wrote:Mine excels at underwater basketweaving.

Lol

Anonymous wrote:Right?? At DD's school, the same 10-15 girls are "co-presidents" of multiple clubs.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are tons of kids who get into top colleges with the formula of:

Top grades in hardest tracks
Tippy top test scores
Enough ECs to pass muster as well rounded

This was me and most of my friends, who were all top 25% (and usually top 10%) at Ivy graduation.

Unless you and most of your friends went to ivies within the last 2 (maybe 3) years, your experience is not relevant to how college admissions is now.

Maybe. But honestly someone who has a top 1% IQ and a top, say, 5% IQ is still going to do awesome at life if they end up at Vanderbilt or Boston College instead of Columbia or whatever.

You can train your kid to become a national fiddling champion to try to get some perceived advantage but in the end talent + discipline + EQ will result in positive life outcomes.

Anyway this is a temporary squeeze birth rates are declining so for those with young kids, it’s going to go back to being like the 90s and 00s again in another decade or so.

I agree with everything except that admissions will become easier again at some point. No, that’s a fantasy that people are clinging to but for top 25-50 schools, globalization means that any delta that might have been created by declining birth rates will be eliminated by increased international applications and acceptance rates.

Some schools are really transparent about how they have increased their proportion of international students over time- Yale has tons of public data about this, for example. It’s more than doubled since the late 90s.

I don’t see schools reducing their population or international students unless they’re a state school and it’s mandated by their legislature.

Ok, I thought this would come up. It’s a good point.

Look, the number of smart, hard working people on earth is not magically exploding. It’s still increasing because population generally is and, in some places like India, lots of poor people are gaining access to basic sanitation and proper childhood nutrition, which are some of the very few things that can actually increase intelligence if available at the right age (below about 3-6).

But birth rates are declining globally AND it’s all still a moot point because economic opportunity is expanding even faster. It’s easier for a top 1% person to become a doctor or lawyer or whatever than ever before because economic growth means there are more of these positions. And jobs like computer scientist simply didn’t exist in large numbers until recently. And yes Americans are facing more direct international competition, but we’re also richer and have more opportunities to benefit from smart foreigners.

As the smart fraction increases, the number of universities known for having seriously smart students will grow. Think of the rise of Northeastern for example. Similarly, if standards decline the reputation of universities will fall accordingly. Frankly, this recent crop of Columbia students seems from afar a lot less impressive than those graduating 20 years ago.

My point was that if you get the inputs right, things will work out. At a minimum, in my experience students selected for academics are much more likely to end up in the top 10% at their school than those selected for some obscure talent.

I will continue to focus on the basics and most important things for my kids. If they have an obscure passion, sure I’ll facilitate, but I’m going to lose zero sleep about whether more standard ECs are going to have an impact on college admissions. I’m playing a longer game than that.

Anonymous wrote:How did yours stand out?
Grade inflation, mid range test scores, no test scores. Don't most seniors seem the "same?"

Kid 1: Did not stand out. "Did the same damn EC" as everyone else

Kid 2: Concentrates on skipping class and getting high. Oh and one varsity sport

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS didn't do any of those activities. He worked PT as a dishwasher/host/food runner. He likes working and earning his own money. No grade inflation in Catholic school. Maybe some grade deflation.

My kid worked a lot too. Started his own small business.

At Ivy.

Ivies buy this BS?
LOL

They've become beholden to their 'formula' and are not looking behind the numbers. The kids who have the right words on the resume to get the numbers to get to the next level review whether there is any "there" there or not.

Anonymous wrote:A kid I know that just got into Princeton is a fisherman.

Interesting. Are they from Alaska?

Anonymous wrote:There are tons of kids who get into top colleges with the formula of:

Top grades in hardest tracks
Tippy top test scores
Enough ECs to pass muster as well rounded

This was me and most of my friends, who were all top 25% (and usually top 10%) at Ivy graduation.

And I went to UofM with a 28 ACT, 3.8, 2 AP classes and one varsity sport (not the captain), and a part time job. But this isn’t 1999.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are tons of kids who get into top colleges with the formula of:

Top grades in hardest tracks
Tippy top test scores
Enough ECs to pass muster as well rounded

This was me and most of my friends, who were all top 25% (and usually top 10%) at Ivy graduation.

Unless you and most of your friends went to ivies within the last 2 (maybe 3) years, your experience is not relevant to how college admissions is now.

Actually, this year and next year will be different from the last two years as well. College admissions has been in constant flux since the class of 2021 applied; no two years have been quite the same since then: Covid class '20 admissions was normal, then deferrals and WL movements went crazy due to COVID; post covid class '21 started TO, dealing with last years deferrals returning; not enough dorm space, new deferrals, and tons of WL movement; '22 TO continuing with tons of deferred kids taking back spots and shrinking the incoming class; '23 TO continues, but starts to claw back, with class sizes normalizing plus explosion of admissions for "alternate start" options like start abroad, other campuses, etc. (always had some of this but it went crazy after COVID as they struggled to get back to class size averages); '24 new AA Supreme court case, plus TO continues to revert in some schools; '25 legacy disappears in many schools coast to coast, schools still grapple with AA changes, TO continues to revert in even more schools -- essentially the rules for each school are different which changes kids lists and strategies yet again). All of this can change what kids try to highlight in their applications. Who knows what next year will look like?

My oldest kid is applying this cycle so take this as an inexperienced view:

I wonder if there is so much emphasis on extra curriculars bc it’s the piece of the puzzle that is more easily controllable by us parents. Grades and ability to succeed in harder class are on our kids. Other factors that colleges use like need to fill band seats, geographic diversity, full pay is out of our control. But extra curricular choices we can suggest and push for.

If I had to guess it really doesn’t matter much. I think colleges want to see a kid with more going on than just school. But I suspect that grades on classes with rigor, test scores matter much more. I also suspect that many schools are using an AI that helps the score the kid and predict outcome at the score based on previous profiles. Much more is out of our control than we think. Honestly, that has made me (and my kid) much more relaxed about applications.

I long for the days when high schoolers joined clubs and played sports because they enjoyed them, not for how it would look on a college application to some random admissions officer.

A kid I know that just got into Princeton is a fisherman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with regular high school clubs and activities? Kids are kids and not every kid (or family) has the wherewithal to pursue a passion project or start a nonprofit or do groundbreaking research. I’m wondering when there will be a backlash against the new admissions metrics and what it will look like.

And what’s wrong with regular college or universities?

Good point. Many of chose to subject our kids to the gauntlet of admission to selective colleges. It’s a choice. I know people who opted out of the madness. There’s a lot to be said for opting out, sticking to the lesser known regional schools that admit 70%+ and calling it a day.

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with regular high school clubs and activities? Kids are kids and not every kid (or family) has the wherewithal to pursue a passion project or start a nonprofit or do groundbreaking research. I’m wondering when there will be a backlash against the new admissions metrics and what it will look like.

And what’s wrong with regular college or universities?

The one difference we saw for our kid’s admission three years ago to an Ivy was selection for and success at a a very selective summer program (not one of the pay to play). Really the only thing differentiating him from his peers who also all had 1500+ SAT, all five APs, multiple leadership positions, etc.