Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This trend makes those families who focused on athleticism as a way to stand out, look increasingly savvy.
Not really. I'm the parent of 2 college varsity athletes (at an Ivy) and unless your kid is good enough to be recruited and wants to continue playing in college, HS athletics won't really make you stand out. And, even then, your child has to be a really strong candidate w/re to grades, scores, recommendations and essays. Many, many families whom we met as our kids played sports together over the years vastly overestimated how much of a boost their kids would get from sports.
I was referring to families like yours, in which the children are truly good athletes. I often wondered if that was time well spent, and now I see that is obviously is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, you would both get in because you are alumni and you have mastered the science of time travel.
Yes, I am very smart that way. DS at Princeton. Not a problem.
Wow, your whole family must be very impressive...or should I say impressed with yourselves? Stop bragging. There are plenty of other people with impressive credentials out there, and some of them are even making positive change in the world.
Just stating the facts, dear. We do not need to make a positive change in the world just because you did not get in. Nice try, though.
I am sorry. What point is it that you are trying to make? Your last statement suggests that you know something about the other poster, which can't be true because he/she makes no assertions. Academically unique for DC and clairvoyant!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, you would both get in because you are alumni and you have mastered the science of time travel.
Yes, I am very smart that way. DS at Princeton. Not a problem.
Wow, your whole family must be very impressive...or should I say impressed with yourselves? Stop bragging. There are plenty of other people with impressive credentials out there, and some of them are even making positive change in the world.
Just stating the facts, dear. We do not need to make a positive change in the world just because you did not get in. Nice try, though.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both my husband and I are very successful (Ivy degrees, etc.). He made partner in Big Law. Our kids are confident and gifted. They are not afraid of competition and they will be winners.
With an attitude like that I feel sorry for your kids. "Winners"? Really?![]()
1st pp is a troll, from a non-English speaking country. 2nd pp is just gullible
How do you know they come from a non-English speaking country?
Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed: Ivies do accept people who have not got a change in !@$$ of going there. That has happened to several friends kids. Make HHI over $100K -- that is two school teachers in the DC area. So you get accepted, but not being eligible for aid, you decline. Who is going to take out a loan for $230K to go to an Ivy? The rich of course.
Anonymous wrote:Please, stop the hyperventilating! The pool of likely admits to the most selective colleges isn't much bigger than it used to be. There are just lots more applicants who would never have been likely to get in submitting their Common Apps.
Here's a good read to provide a little reassurance - http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/is-college-really-harder-to-get-into-than-it-used-to-be/360114/
The top 1-2% of high school graduates today really isn't that much different than the top 1-2% in the '80s. If your child is one of the top kids in his/her school and he/she took the most rigorous classes available and scored respectably (relative to their level of privilege), your child will get into one of the elite colleges. A strong student's odds of getting into one of the elite colleges is as good now as it was 30-40 years ago. The reason the admit rates have fallen so sharply is that lots more kids in the top 20% take a shot when similar would have been heavily discouraged a generation ago.
What's changed is that the odds of getting into any particular elite college is much harder. DC may have her heart set on Brown and not get in, but there is a pretty strong chance she will get into Dartmouth, Cornell, or Penn and an even better chance to get into one of the really good SLACs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Mean to say that the odds for legacy admits are better than for the general pool -- but certainly not relatively easy.
The hard thing about going up against legacy is also that many legacy kids are very smart.
Anonymous wrote:Mean to say that the odds for legacy admits are better than for the general pool -- but certainly not relatively easy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, you would both get in because you are alumni and you have mastered the science of time travel.
Yes, I am very smart that way. DS at Princeton. Not a problem.
Wow, your whole family must be very impressive...or should I say impressed with yourselves? Stop bragging. There are plenty of other people with impressive credentials out there, and some of them are even making positive change in the world.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This trend makes those families who focused on athleticism as a way to stand out, look increasingly savvy.
Not really. I'm the parent of 2 college varsity athletes (at an Ivy) and unless your kid is good enough to be recruited and wants to continue playing in college, HS athletics won't really make you stand out. And, even then, your child has to be a really strong candidate w/re to grades, scores, recommendations and essays. Many, many families whom we met as our kids played sports together over the years vastly overestimated how much of a boost their kids would get from sports.
Anonymous wrote:This trend makes those families who focused on athleticism as a way to stand out, look increasingly savvy.