Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thirty five pages of ranting by nerdy parents of nerdy children. Cut me a break.

I think some of this is actually sour grapes from kids who just got deferred. Some of the lack of perspective seems like it comes.from teenagers. OPs story is for sure false, and I think some of the rest of this sounds like teens.

I’m OP. My story is not false unless my friend misstated something. She posted on social media about the acceptances, so I can’t believe she’d do that with her son in the pictures and being tagged.

Ok, well, you don't have to name the woman and her son, but name the schools.

The best part about this whole thing is that generally elite athletes are smarter than the average bear. Sure, there are some meathead football or basketball players, but many who seem dumb just haven't ever had to work hard in their lives but are still smart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thirty five pages of ranting by nerdy parents of nerdy children. Cut me a break.

I think some of this is actually sour grapes from kids who just got deferred. Some of the lack of perspective seems like it comes.from teenagers. OPs story is for sure false, and I think some of the rest of this sounds like teens.

I’m OP. My story is not false unless my friend misstated something. She posted on social media about the acceptances, so I can’t believe she’d do that with her son in the pictures and being tagged.

Anonymous wrote:Thirty five pages of ranting by nerdy parents of nerdy children. Cut me a break.

I think some of this is actually sour grapes from kids who just got deferred. Some of the lack of perspective seems like it comes.from teenagers. OPs story is for sure false, and I think some of the rest of this sounds like teens.

Thirty five pages of ranting by nerdy parents of nerdy children. Cut me a break.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

As an example- 99th % in the NYC marathon is 2:49. 93% is 3:20.
These people are running different races. While the 93% finisher is a great runner, they cannot even see the 99% finisher.
Same in academics.

Do you have any data showing that some in the 93rd percentile either can't handle work at Harvard or will end up being less successful than someone in the 99th percentile?

The 93 percenter finishes the marathon..heck do does the 99th percentile one that comes crawling in. The 99 percentile is elite and is a better marathoner than the slower finishers.

ok, that makes great sense in your analogy. Do you have an data showing that a 93rd percentile high school student performs measurably worse in college than a 99th percentile highschool student

It is ok for there to be places for the top students to study. Relax.

Agree, and to the question, there's an abundance of data connecting SATs and various measures of outcomes. As I'm sure you know, studies focus on differences across the entire spectrum, rather than within the top decile of scores. That said, I'm pretty intimately aware of the massive delta in ability across Harvard students. I'd certainly rather hire at one end of that than the other (and I do).

As far as success, that's an interesting question. It's pretty uncontroversial that the Harvard brand is going to boost career prospects to the point where perhaps these differences become harder to measure. That said, if Harvard takes the attitude that they can admit whoever because they're going to be successful anyway, well that's going to ultimately dilute the brand.

Newsflash: Harvard has always taken the position that they can admit whomever they please because those people will be successful anyhow, and it doesn't seem to have diluted their brand yet.

That's not even close to true. I grant you that Harvard is arrogant, but they're quite careful about who they admit and the implications for their brand.

You know nothing about the history of Harvard. Or do you actually believe Harvard has always been a meritocracy?

What century are you living in?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like many of you haven’t even walked onto a live-in college campus. It is not all about high achieving academics. There is a mind body soul aspect to it as well. There are sports, clubs, singing groups, a newspaper, a radio station, theatrical performances, gyms, climbing walls, chapels, gardens, farms, you name it. It’s about educating the well rounded kid and introducing them to life beyond high school and the world and different perspectives. No one wants a whole school of singleminded academically focused students who do nothing but study. That’s not what it’s about. If that’s the only qualification the school wanted they would get rid of all of their amazing facilities and save a lot of money.

I agree with you completely, but threads like these show that there are plenty of DCUM posters who would be thrilled if elite schools were populated only by the students described in your bolded sentence, aka known the students who most resemble those posters’ kids. It has always struck me as shortsighted. You don’t care about sports in general and certainly not the sports predominantly played by rich, mostly white kids? Well lots of rich power brokers out in the real world do. I am very happy for my kids to be making friends with kids with all kinds of interests and backgrounds in college, including the many nice kids who had a more privileged upbringing, and have many more connections, than mine.

It’s not black and white. No one is arguing for all students to be the same. We are saying that athletes shouldn’t have offers for admittance without applying (initially). Athletes shouldn’t have an easier time getting a spot because a coach makes a call and puts their application under a different priority and consideration lens as other kids.

Athletics should be judged like all other EC activities. You played a club sport well for more than a decade? Put that with Eagle Scout kids. You are highly state ranked in track? Put that with someone who has won state or National contests or similar recognition, like robotics, research, etc. An athlete has a below average test score, put their application down a notch - as would happen to router students like that who apply. So the sports is a plus, but not largely determinative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

Not only that, you're assuming that the SAT acts like a scalpel as opposed to an ax when it comes to assessing academic ability. If you really think that the scores are that precise and predictive you've got another thing coming.

Yeah because 93rd percentile people accidentally score at the 99th all the time. Totally a blunt instrument.

Oh please. If the scores were as precise as you claim they are, then why does virtually no student who takes the SAT more than once get the same exact score the second time around?

What you say is true. Simultaneously, it is also true that scoring near the 100th percentile is probably not an accident.

Probably not. It also doesn't mean that those who don't score that high, but who do score in the 90s, couldn't possibly score that high ever.

Possible? Of course. But very improbable.

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that you take the SAT as many times as you want and you only report your highest score for that section. Very very few will score 98% on just taking the test once. Kids are taking 5-6 times and reporting only their highest section. The SAT is a game.

That's sill better than sports, which is literally a game. Most athletes that are recruited had massive investments from their parents in selecting the "right" sport, special training camps, personal coaches, etc. Getting into college as an athlete is about as rigged as it gets.

You do realize that you take the SAT as many times as you want and you only report your highest score for that section. Very very few will score 98% on just taking the test once. Kids are taking 5-6 times and reporting only their highest section. The SAT is a game.

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like many of you haven’t even walked onto a live-in college campus. It is not all about high achieving academics. There is a mind body soul aspect to it as well. There are sports, clubs, singing groups, a newspaper, a radio station, theatrical performances, gyms, climbing walls, chapels, gardens, farms, you name it. It’s about educating the well rounded kid and introducing them to life beyond high school and the world and different perspectives. No one wants a whole school of singleminded academically focused students who do nothing but study. That’s not what it’s about. If that’s the only qualification the school wanted they would get rid of all of their amazing facilities and save a lot of money.

Actually a lot of people are beginning to rethink those "amazing facilities" and all the student debt that comes with it. Tuition has spiraled out of control because the football players want that new locker room and lazy river to boot. Why go basically to a lavish country club for 4 years and then be stuck in debtor's prison for life?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

Not only that, you're assuming that the SAT acts like a scalpel as opposed to an ax when it comes to assessing academic ability. If you really think that the scores are that precise and predictive you've got another thing coming.

Yeah because 93rd percentile people accidentally score at the 99th all the time. Totally a blunt instrument.

Oh please. If the scores were as precise as you claim they are, then why does virtually no student who takes the SAT more than once get the same exact score the second time around?

What you say is true. Simultaneously, it is also true that scoring near the 100th percentile is probably not an accident.

Probably not. It also doesn't mean that those who don't score that high, but who do score in the 90s, couldn't possibly score that high ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

Not only that, you're assuming that the SAT acts like a scalpel as opposed to an ax when it comes to assessing academic ability. If you really think that the scores are that precise and predictive you've got another thing coming.

I don't think that PP can be an actual adult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

Not only that, you're assuming that the SAT acts like a scalpel as opposed to an ax when it comes to assessing academic ability. If you really think that the scores are that precise and predictive you've got another thing coming.

Yeah because 93rd percentile people accidentally score at the 99th all the time. Totally a blunt instrument.

Oh please. If the scores were as precise as you claim they are, then why does virtually no student who takes the SAT more than once get the same exact score the second time around?

What you say is true. Simultaneously, it is also true that scoring near the 100th percentile is probably not an accident.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

As an example- 99th % in the NYC marathon is 2:49. 93% is 3:20.
These people are running different races. While the 93% finisher is a great runner, they cannot even see the 99% finisher.
Same in academics.

Do you have any data showing that some in the 93rd percentile either can't handle work at Harvard or will end up being less successful than someone in the 99th percentile?

The 93 percenter finishes the marathon..heck do does the 99th percentile one that comes crawling in. The 99 percentile is elite and is a better marathoner than the slower finishers.

ok, that makes great sense in your analogy. Do you have an data showing that a 93rd percentile high school student performs measurably worse in college than a 99th percentile highschool student

It is ok for there to be places for the top students to study. Relax.

Agree, and to the question, there's an abundance of data connecting SATs and various measures of outcomes. As I'm sure you know, studies focus on differences across the entire spectrum, rather than within the top decile of scores. That said, I'm pretty intimately aware of the massive delta in ability across Harvard students. I'd certainly rather hire at one end of that than the other (and I do).

As far as success, that's an interesting question. It's pretty uncontroversial that the Harvard brand is going to boost career prospects to the point where perhaps these differences become harder to measure. That said, if Harvard takes the attitude that they can admit whoever because they're going to be successful anyway, well that's going to ultimately dilute the brand.

Newsflash: Harvard has always taken the position that they can admit whomever they please because those people will be successful anyhow, and it doesn't seem to have diluted their brand yet.

That's not even close to true. I grant you that Harvard is arrogant, but they're quite careful about who they admit and the implications for their brand.

You know nothing about the history of Harvard. Or do you actually believe Harvard has always been a meritocracy?