Anonymous wrote:Basically title - and I'm not being sarcastic. I looked at the resume of a local kid going to Harvard and my mind was blown. National merit finalist. 4.0. But those were a given. After that, he racked up at least 7 individual awards including the Harvard book award from Junior year, a superintendent award given to one student per district. He also had mind blowing extra curriculars that he led/founded. This led me to another one from my town who played a niche sport, sang as a soloist and in a huge choir but also racked up tons of science fair awards and grants. Both of these students could have been three students with the amount of success they'd seen in high school. Are they ALL like this? Are your kids like this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HYP was so much whiter and richer in my day. I mean, "rich" then meant children of doctors (wealth has exploded). but 80% of kids were very very comfortable. The application pool was also rich. Now the application pool is really global: more first gen, more international, more rural, more apps from all corners of America.

Basically same number of athletes (more women, but that's good). Few kids from boarding schools.

It's only less impressive if you really liked those white kids from Westchester with names you can pronounce without trying even a little. There are professors and employers who I'm sure prefer the old ways, but not the major employers.

They are still very well represented, don't kid yourself.

sure but more from questbridge.

Anonymous wrote:Only if Asian.

Anonymous wrote:Special? Double legacy + white people sports

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are able to do all these activities because they go to less demanding high schools. Once at a more demanding college, they can't keep up.

no one thinks they will be doing their athletics, music, or non profit at HYP or afterwards on wallstreet

MIT protects athletics on the daily schedule. I found it easier to do athletics at MIT than in high school where the tennis team required 5 to 8 hours of practice + matches daily.

5 to 8 hours of practice…a week? That seems reasonable. Daily? That seems nuts.

What high school other than say IMG Academy would have that kind of practice schedule?

Any top athletic high school. Not sure about the east coast but the in season west coast norm at somewhere like Mater Dei, Marymount, Serra, Mitty, etc. would be 3 hours a day of practice/play plus 6 hours of lift per week. Off season would be 6 hours of lift per week plus 2 to hours a day play/practice for club.

The kids that go Ivy and NESCAC are usually pretty surprised that the workload is less than high school.

Not always true. DD is working much harder. I’d say she works 80+hours a week. 4 highly demanding classes which take about 60-70 hours. Plus 10 for the clubs. She comes from a highly regarded private and is prepared but she opted for the hardest classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HYP was so much whiter and richer in my day. I mean, "rich" then meant children of doctors (wealth has exploded). but 80% of kids were very very comfortable. The application pool was also rich. Now the application pool is really global: more first gen, more international, more rural, more apps from all corners of America.

Basically same number of athletes (more women, but that's good). Few kids from boarding schools.

It's only less impressive if you really liked those white kids from Westchester with names you can pronounce without trying even a little. There are professors and employers who I'm sure prefer the old ways, but not the major employers.

They are still very well represented, don't kid yourself.

Anonymous wrote:If you ask professors and employers, they'll tell you that students at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton today are generally not the same caliber as students from 20 or 30 years ago. Some of it is generational. But mostly it's the admissions priorities today, which largely benefit a few select groups of students (rich, private schools, athletes, FGLI) and disadvantage many other very talented and exceptional students. Stanford is a little different. It's still very elite, but the defining spirit of Stanford today is greed. That's what you're getting with your average Stanford grad now. None of these four schools are thrumming with intellectual energy. But MIT mostly continues to do MIT things. There aren't a lot of billionaire kids yearning to do the Science Core at MIT. The upside to the state of HYPS today is that there are a lot of the other schools getting the best and brightest now, which is good.

Anonymous wrote:HYP was so much whiter and richer in my day. I mean, "rich" then meant children of doctors (wealth has exploded). but 80% of kids were very very comfortable. The application pool was also rich. Now the application pool is really global: more first gen, more international, more rural, more apps from all corners of America.

Basically same number of athletes (more women, but that's good). Few kids from boarding schools.

It's only less impressive if you really liked those white kids from Westchester with names you can pronounce without trying even a little. There are professors and employers who I'm sure prefer the old ways, but not the major employers.

Anonymous wrote:HYP have always taken kids of privilege- this is nothing new. I’d argue they are more free now to take the best and brightest than they were before. Remember there were bans against black and Jewish students and then it became quotas.

We’ve attended virtual revisit events at a HYP and have seen a mix of students. There have been a few who come off as less than impressive. But, overall these are bright, curious kids. Some are wildly impressive. Could have easily ended up at any top 30 school depending on who was reading their file.

Anonymous wrote:If you ask professors and employers, they'll tell you that students at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton today are generally not the same caliber as students from 20 or 30 years ago. Some of it is generational. But mostly it's the admissions priorities today, which largely benefit a few select groups of students (rich, private schools, athletes, FGLI) and disadvantage many other very talented and exceptional students. Stanford is a little different. It's still very elite, but the defining spirit of Stanford today is greed. That's what you're getting with your average Stanford grad now. None of these four schools are thrumming with intellectual energy. But MIT mostly continues to do MIT things. There aren't a lot of billionaire kids yearning to do the Science Core at MIT. The upside to the state of HYPS today is that there are a lot of the other schools getting the best and brightest now, which is good.