Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is being recruited by an Ivy to play tennis. He also has an 800 math sat and his lowest grade was an A- in a 9th grade class taken in 8th grade.

I don’t know why people assume jocks are dumb.

Because we have actual data from Harvard that shows that while athletes aren’t dumb their academic accomplishments are markedly below those of other admits. Good for your kid though with a 800 math SAT they are like plenty of students rejected from Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Williams and Amherst have single digit admissions rates. The rates you cite can only possibly by ED and if so, as a PP said, are very skewed by atheltes which they probably recruit in the same raw numbers as ivies but the colleges themselves are much smaller. At my
kids’ mcps high school, many more students were admitted to Cornell than either of these.

In the world of kids I know, the ones who were admitted to H/Y/P were true superstars. Not just perfect gpa, perfect sat and the most rigorous classes (and when I say most rigorous, I really mean it - not just thru MV but also took all of the english and social studies APs, took multiple hard science APs, and finished world language AP junior year). But also excelled in other things - music, science competitions, quizbowl or debate. These were the 2-3 kids in a class of 500 who you “knew” would one day go to H/Y/P. There are of course other students every year who get into Penn,Columbia, Dartmouth - these kids are also terrific students but don’t have that “extra” and so there are a lot more of them so it actually seems less predictable to me why Lola got into Penn and Larla
did not.

And again, I think from our HS the students have an easier time getting into Penn and Dartmouth than Williams and Amherst where the 1-2 admits are usually sports recruits (and terrific students).

My answer expands on this but generally tracks. Top 10 schools are for the very top kids at a high school. Truly, top 3-5 in class (not 5%), above 1550 test scores, major leadership (President of class, captain of championship winning team sort of stuff). They will likely get rejected to some places too but I have seen most of those kids get into 1 top 10 school that is considered the long shot - particularly if they can apply SCEA/ED.

I think where DCUM gets confused is many of us have a kid who is awesome but not quite that level: maybe 1550 SAT and near perfect grades but only top 10 kids in class. Maybe President if a smaller club. And, that kid is awesome but there are so many out there like that. I have one of these. He is not going to get into an Ivy (maybe he would have in my generation, but that is not relevant) and he is not sad about it. He knows he is accomplished but there are more qualified candidates. He has found a few schools beyond the top 20 he would be excited to attend. They are tremendous colleges.

We can all believe our kids are great and worked hard but rationally understand they are not worthy of a spot where only 6/100 kids get in. And be proud of them and excited for college!

I am sure Northwestern is a good school, but the students from our private DC high school who apply and get in NU are not the top students in the grade. Probably top 25-30%

Anonymous wrote:My son is being recruited by an Ivy to play tennis. He also has an 800 math sat and his lowest grade was an A- in a 9th grade class taken in 8th grade.

I don’t know why people assume jocks are dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why Duke and NW are in OPs conversation. But way to get these two in there with the ivy pluses.

Highly unlikely that an applicant would be admitted to either Top 10 National University on stats alone.

Both schools are ranked higher than half of the Ivies by US News.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Williams and Amherst have single digit admissions rates. The rates you cite can only possibly by ED and if so, as a PP said, are very skewed by atheltes which they probably recruit in the same raw numbers as ivies but the colleges themselves are much smaller. At my
kids’ mcps high school, many more students were admitted to Cornell than either of these.

In the world of kids I know, the ones who were admitted to H/Y/P were true superstars. Not just perfect gpa, perfect sat and the most rigorous classes (and when I say most rigorous, I really mean it - not just thru MV but also took all of the english and social studies APs, took multiple hard science APs, and finished world language AP junior year). But also excelled in other things - music, science competitions, quizbowl or debate. These were the 2-3 kids in a class of 500 who you “knew” would one day go to H/Y/P. There are of course other students every year who get into Penn,Columbia, Dartmouth - these kids are also terrific students but don’t have that “extra” and so there are a lot more of them so it actually seems less predictable to me why Lola got into Penn and Larla
did not.

And again, I think from our HS the students have an easier time getting into Penn and Dartmouth than Williams and Amherst where the 1-2 admits are usually sports recruits (and terrific students).

My answer expands on this but generally tracks. Top 10 schools are for the very top kids at a high school. Truly, top 3-5 in class (not 5%), above 1550 test scores, major leadership (President of class, captain of championship winning team sort of stuff). They will likely get rejected to some places too but I have seen most of those kids get into 1 top 10 school that is considered the long shot - particularly if they can apply SCEA/ED.

I think where DCUM gets confused is many of us have a kid who is awesome but not quite that level: maybe 1550 SAT and near perfect grades but only top 10 kids in class. Maybe President if a smaller club. And, that kid is awesome but there are so many out there like that. I have one of these. He is not going to get into an Ivy (maybe he would have in my generation, but that is not relevant) and he is not sad about it. He knows he is accomplished but there are more qualified candidates. He has found a few schools beyond the top 20 he would be excited to attend. They are tremendous colleges.

We can all believe our kids are great and worked hard but rationally understand they are not worthy of a spot where only 6/100 kids get in. And be proud of them and excited for college!

Anonymous wrote:My son is being recruited by an Ivy to play tennis. He also has an 800 math sat and his lowest grade was an A- in a 9th grade class taken in 8th grade.

I don’t know why people assume jocks are dumb.

Anonymous wrote:Williams and Amherst have single digit admissions rates. The rates you cite can only possibly by ED and if so, as a PP said, are very skewed by atheltes which they probably recruit in the same raw numbers as ivies but the colleges themselves are much smaller. At my
kids’ mcps high school, many more students were admitted to Cornell than either of these.

In the world of kids I know, the ones who were admitted to H/Y/P were true superstars. Not just perfect gpa, perfect sat and the most rigorous classes (and when I say most rigorous, I really mean it - not just thru MV but also took all of the english and social studies APs, took multiple hard science APs, and finished world language AP junior year). But also excelled in other things - music, science competitions, quizbowl or debate. These were the 2-3 kids in a class of 500 who you “knew” would one day go to H/Y/P. There are of course other students every year who get into Penn,Columbia, Dartmouth - these kids are also terrific students but don’t have that “extra” and so there are a lot more of them so it actually seems less predictable to me why Lola got into Penn and Larla
did not.

And again, I think from our HS the students have an easier time getting into Penn and Dartmouth than Williams and Amherst where the 1-2 admits are usually sports recruits (and terrific students).

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why Duke and NW are in OPs conversation. But way to get these two in there with the ivy pluses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sensing snobbery here with emphasis on "Top Privates",
Some of our finest universities are top publics.
I've got one at one of OP's stated schools - but my next one has a fine public as first choice - and she has better stats etc than her sibling (and than OP)

What are the differentiators for Berkeley or Michigan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sensing snobbery here with emphasis on "Top Privates",
Some of our finest universities are top publics.
I've got one at one of OP's stated schools - but my next one has a fine public as first choice - and she has better stats etc than her sibling (and than OP)

(OP here.)

Excellent question.

I specified top private National Universities because for a couple of reasons: the top ranked publics start at #20 or lower US News National Universities rankings and public universities often place very high emphasis on stats (GPA, rigor of high school, & standardized test scores) and publics consider state residency and overwhelmingly admit state residents (e.g., 80% of admitted applicant are state residents at Berkeley; over 85% of matriculated students at UCLA are California state residents). UCLA & UC-Berkeley are the two highest ranked public National Universities = tied at #20. Next is a tie at #25 US News ranking = Michigan & Virginia. Then a tie at #29 = Florida (92% of all students are residents) & UNC (87% residents)which both have very high standards for non-resident admits.

No snobbery, just different admission practices. Also, high stats & state residency are usually enough for admission to most state universities.

Anonymous wrote:Sensing snobbery here with emphasis on "Top Privates",
Some of our finest universities are top publics.
I've got one at one of OP's stated schools - but my next one has a fine public as first choice - and she has better stats etc than her sibling (and than OP)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question arose after reading another thread about kids top 3 college choices. One parent listed her daughter's top 3 choices as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton and stated that the daughter had the stats to enter the Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton lotteries. With admission rates below 5%, the concern arose about what opportunities a high stats kid sacrifices by foregoing ED options to target these three ultra selective schools. Many private National Universities with overall admission rates under 10% have RD admission rates much closer to 5% due to the number of spots taken by ED admits. Is it wise to sacrifice ED opportunities to an elite school for an unhooked high stats applicant for a lottery shot at Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton ?

The "stats" are probably top athletes in their sport in the nation.

Not if they’re recruited to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, etc. none of the top recruits in those sports go to HYP except maybe Stanford on rare occasions. They’re very good high school athletes but hardly the top in the nation.

Less than 2% of high school athletes go on to play D1. Even the very bottom of D1 is top one to few percent in the country plus other top international athletes. High-level D3 athletic departments, which most elite D3 schools (MIT, Chicago, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Hopkins) have, would still be at least top 5% as well.

Well then you’re defining “top” very liberally for athletes in a way you don’t for the skills and abilities of other applicants.

Why were more people on this board not getting their kids involved in sports years ago?! It hasn't been a secret that being a highly recruited athlete is the best hook at almost all of the best schools (at some it is being a legacy). The Varsity Blues scandal shows what parents are willing to give to make their kids "recruited athletes."

From the school's perspective, what other campus activities come close to bringing together the campus community and alumni in the same way? Donations aside, teams are an important part of the campus community at almost every good school, with CalTech being the true exception. Plus, what if a couple of your basketball players end up being the Koch brothers? It still cracks me up knowing that MIT's basketball coach is actually the David H. Koch '62 Head Coach!

No one’s contesting that recruited athletes are the most important hook. But claiming that recruited athletes at Ivy League schools are “top”
athletes in their sports is simply blowing smoke.

Attendance at 90% of sporting events that are recruited is minimal. Even Ivy League football is barely attended. How many donations are flowing to the cot all fencing team?

The schools really should think about cutting some of those sports that don't have regular attendance or create any sense of community. They are also expensive to operate. Stanford tried to cut multiple sports and the alums went crazy and are now privately funding a number of them.

Ivy League football attendance isn't great but it is still far better than any other regular campus activity I can think of. Yale and Harvard both averaged over 10,000 in 2021 and Princeton, Columbia, and Dartmouth all averaged over 5,000 https://herosports.com/2021-fcs-attendance-leaders-bzbz/

Could you clarify whether averaging 5,000 is good? For five home games that only take place in the fall? Considering the number recruited athletes for football and the resources the university has to put into it, it seems that a random a cappella concert that draws 750 people is a better use of space and resources.

Even the Yale number is skewed by the fact that the Harvard Yale game was at Yale that year. Remove that game and the attendance for the other games was probably below 5,000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why Duke and NW are in OPs conversation. But way to get these two in there with the ivy pluses.

Dayim

Duke an NW aren't Ivies. They also don't belong with Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UChicago.