Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't remember. I graduated in 2002 from high school. Obviously I know where I went to college, but aside from remembering I'd be satisfied if I broke 1300 on the SATs, don't know any of my stats.

This. Who remembers this stuff so long? One of the slight comforts I don't tell my college kid about just yet is that several years out of college, no one on Earth will ever care again what her high school GPA and SAT/ACT scores were! I graduated from HS more than 30 years ago, and have zero idea what my "stats" were. They were likely high by today's standards but I was a big fish in a small pond so it's not comparable to kids at super competitive, academically very rigorous high schools in this region today. Got into the university I wanted early admission or whatever it was called back then, and I don't even recall finishing applications to other colleges where I'd started the process. Thank God, too, because the other options were never going to be good fits for many reasons.

People with better memories?
People who took it more seriously?
People who put more effort into it because they applied to more than one college?

I am one of the pps that remembers my gpa an SAT score, and yes I have an incredible memory for stupid stuff. I can remember all of my high school schedules, teachers, which of my classmates sat near me--and in some cases I can even remember every single student and where they sat in the class. It's ridiculous how vivid the memories are for me.

Entered college in Fall 1998
SAT 1290
ACT 27
GPA 3.9
Varsity Swimmer, Lots of extracurriculars, JROTC
1st generation college student/received Pell Grant

Applied to:
U.S. Naval Academy - accepted/attended
U.S. Air Force Academy - rejected
Virginia Tech - accepted
Norwich University - accepted

Wanted to apply to Dartmouth, couldn't afford the application fee

Anonymous wrote:OP here- Amazing how much shorter our lists were, compared to how many more schools it seems kids apply to these days. And also how uninvolved most of our parents were. I even had to coordinate my own tours and get to the schools on my own. Most of our snowflakes today are touring schools with parents as soon as they start HS

You may call it not catering to snowflakes but I would call it disinterest bordering on neglect. My parents were no where to be found when I has to figure out the college thing and wow could I have used some guidance. No way I am abandoning my children when they could use a little guidance on such a big life decision.

Fall 1993:

Over 4.0, 1300 ish SAT (I don’t remember specifics)
Tons of EC: clubs, varsity sports, competitive summer programs, summer jobs, etc.

Applied ED to UVA and had my decision by Thanksgiving of senior year.

DS finished his EA a few weeks ago and he kept asking “mom what did you do?” I kept explaining I typed one application on a typewriter

OP here- Amazing how much shorter our lists were, compared to how many more schools it seems kids apply to these days. And also how uninvolved most of our parents were. I even had to coordinate my own tours and get to the schools on my own. Most of our snowflakes today are touring schools with parents as soon as they start HS

1010 SAT, accepted to PSU in the early 90s

Anonymous wrote:1994

GPA 3.7 ish?
SAT 1430

Accepted everywhere I applied, ultimately went to Northwestern. Full list:

Cornell
University of Chicago
Vanderbilt
Tufts
University of Michigan (Honors program)
BC

Oh, and Wash U. Knew I was forgetting one. I graduated from a W school, which I don't remember being a thing back then, but who knows.

Sorry, forgot to state that this was back in 1993

31 ACT, 1280 SAT, 5.17 inflated GPA, applied for aid, attended low-income suburban high school in the midwest. Weighted Advanced and Honors classes, not just AP

Duke - no
UNC CH - no, they only accepted from certain high schools, legacy or athletes
NU - yes
The U of Chicago - yes
Illinois - yes
Indiana - yes
Wesleyan - no

I will note that I still didn't get enough aid to make attendance feasible at NU or Chicago. I don't think Duke liked financial aid applicants back then.
Attended IL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll play lowest SAT- I think posted 1020 540 English 480 Math…. Graduated 1991. I was in top 20 percent of my class GPA-wise

Accepted UMD NYU VT PSU Pitt
Rejected Georgetown

Attended one of the state schools due to cost. Never in a million years would I have been accepted to any of these schools today.

SINce 1991, there’s been a huge grade and standardized score inflations.

I remember about 7 yrs ago, one of my coworkers said her niece is on scholarship with a 4.0 gpa. Her plan was to become a medical doctor. In the old days, 4.0 meant straight As and probably the valedictorian of the HS. When my own kid applied to colleges, I learned 4.0 means 70th percentile. The niece has since graduated and now works at the doctors office as a receptionist answering phones.

Your bitterness has made you make a very unpleasant and distasteful post, recounting a story of a friend in a pejorative way and insulting a person who does honest work without all the details. You should be ashamed.

Yes there are many more high-performing kids than before. The culture seems to have changed to value academic performance more. Is that a bad thing?

Or are you suggesting that highschool and standardized tests are easier now than they were in 1991? Please provide data to support that.

You can do your own googling on the last point. But thanks for your feedback on your first point. I was only trying to be positive towards the PP who said s/he could never get into schools nowadays.

That’s a mature mea culpa on the first point and I genuinely admire you for it.

As for the second, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

not the PP, but this literally took five seconds. If you took the SAT before April 1995, you have an excuse.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/sat-increases-the-average-score-by-fiat.html

https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-02-04-Dorans.pdf

I think we could have taken judicial notice on this one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1985
3.7
1210
Harvard Rejected
Brown Rejected
Stanford Accepted Attended
Tufts Accepted
Wesleyan Waitlisted
Northwestern Accepted
Boston University Accepted

This is why Stanford should be the lowest of the elite. Their priority was not, and is not, in academics.

Please email the school, cc Guido Imbens and let them know your very valuable opinion. It will have a tremendous impact on everyone around the world. Please feel free to create your own version of "elite" on the toilet paper, while you think about it - Ivy alumna who had Dr. Imbens as TA.

Stanford student paper has been complaining about school’s fetish with athletes at the expense of non-athlete students. As long as its focus is on sports, the paper argues Stanford will always be below academic institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, MIT. Stanford took its rightful spot below these institutions.

They should have attended a different school. BTW, all the schools above with the exception of MIT have special athletic recruitment and my H went to one of them to play a sport. Brown has a weak spot for celebrities and royalty.

True, except Stanford is the only one offering full rides to athletes. Ivies don’t do that. Additionally, Stanford pours extra money to athletes to make sure they graduate. I don’t believe ivies do that.

I totally suport full rides for athletes, these kids are exceptional - they spend an insane amount of time training and also studying. It takes a lot of discipline to be able to do both and the ability to work well with others is a skill that lasts a lifetime and preps them for leadership positions. DC1's BFF did swimming and that kid was up at 4 AM so many times a week, including winter time. Brown had special tutors for athletes and the football team had their own Wall Street tour and separate recruiting events.

Not taking anything away from the athletes. Stanford Non athletes are complaining the money spent on athletes is money taken away from regular students. Stop overestimating Stanford. Non-athletes too, can use the money for extra tutoring. They are not geniuses you think they are. And you don’t think regular students can use separate Wall Street/Silicon Valley tours with separate recruiting events? The $$$$ spent on athletes is the money taken away from academic programs. For this reason, Stanford as a whole can not compete academically with top ivies where there is no special treatment for athletes. They are correctly place at #6 by USNews (according to some Stanford students.)

don't bother - those who worship athletes, will never stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll play lowest SAT- I think posted 1020 540 English 480 Math…. Graduated 1991. I was in top 20 percent of my class GPA-wise

Accepted UMD NYU VT PSU Pitt
Rejected Georgetown

Attended one of the state schools due to cost. Never in a million years would I have been accepted to any of these schools today.

SINce 1991, there’s been a huge grade and standardized score inflations.

I remember about 7 yrs ago, one of my coworkers said her niece is on scholarship with a 4.0 gpa. Her plan was to become a medical doctor. In the old days, 4.0 meant straight As and probably the valedictorian of the HS. When my own kid applied to colleges, I learned 4.0 means 70th percentile. The niece has since graduated and now works at the doctors office as a receptionist answering phones.

Your bitterness has made you make a very unpleasant and distasteful post, recounting a story of a friend in a pejorative way and insulting a person who does honest work without all the details. You should be ashamed.

Yes there are many more high-performing kids than before. The culture seems to have changed to value academic performance more. Is that a bad thing?

Or are you suggesting that highschool and standardized tests are easier now than they were in 1991? Please provide data to support that.

You can do your own googling on the last point. But thanks for your feedback on your first point. I was only trying to be positive towards the PP who said s/he could never get into schools nowadays.

That’s a mature mea culpa on the first point and I genuinely admire you for it.

As for the second, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

not the PP, but this literally took five seconds. If you took the SAT before April 1995, you have an excuse.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/sat-increases-the-average-score-by-fiat.html

https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-02-04-Dorans.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll play lowest SAT- I think posted 1020 540 English 480 Math…. Graduated 1991. I was in top 20 percent of my class GPA-wise

Accepted UMD NYU VT PSU Pitt
Rejected Georgetown

Attended one of the state schools due to cost. Never in a million years would I have been accepted to any of these schools today.

SINce 1991, there’s been a huge grade and standardized score inflations.

I remember about 7 yrs ago, one of my coworkers said her niece is on scholarship with a 4.0 gpa. Her plan was to become a medical doctor. In the old days, 4.0 meant straight As and probably the valedictorian of the HS. When my own kid applied to colleges, I learned 4.0 means 70th percentile. The niece has since graduated and now works at the doctors office as a receptionist answering phones.

The SAT was originally set to where the average score would be about 1000, but this was when only a select percentage of high school students were taking it. By the 1980s, as the percentage of students taking it had increased significantly, the average declined to about 890 or so and there came a push to "re-center" the scores. In 2020, the average score was 1051, which is primarily the product of rec-entering in the 1990s and 2000s.

Likewise, the GPAs of today are far higher due to weighting, the prevalence of AP courses, and general and well documented grade inflation over a long period of time. Grade inflation is particularly prevalent in public schools in more affluent areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1985
3.7
1210
Harvard Rejected
Brown Rejected
Stanford Accepted Attended
Tufts Accepted
Wesleyan Waitlisted
Northwestern Accepted
Boston University Accepted

This is why Stanford should be the lowest of the elite. Their priority was not, and is not, in academics.

Please email the school, cc Guido Imbens and let them know your very valuable opinion. It will have a tremendous impact on everyone around the world. Please feel free to create your own version of "elite" on the toilet paper, while you think about it - Ivy alumna who had Dr. Imbens as TA.

Stanford student paper has been complaining about school’s fetish with athletes at the expense of non-athlete students. As long as its focus is on sports, the paper argues Stanford will always be below academic institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, MIT. Stanford took its rightful spot below these institutions.

They should have attended a different school. BTW, all the schools above with the exception of MIT have special athletic recruitment and my H went to one of them to play a sport. Brown has a weak spot for celebrities and royalty.

True, except Stanford is the only one offering full rides to athletes. Ivies don’t do that. Additionally, Stanford pours extra money to athletes to make sure they graduate. I don’t believe ivies do that.

I totally suport full rides for athletes, these kids are exceptional - they spend an insane amount of time training and also studying. It takes a lot of discipline to be able to do both and the ability to work well with others is a skill that lasts a lifetime and preps them for leadership positions. DC1's BFF did swimming and that kid was up at 4 AM so many times a week, including winter time. Brown had special tutors for athletes and the football team had their own Wall Street tour and separate recruiting events.

Not taking anything away from the athletes. Stanford Non athletes are complaining the money spent on athletes is money taken away from regular students. Stop overestimating Stanford. Non-athletes too, can use the money for extra tutoring. They are not geniuses you think they are. And you don’t think regular students can use separate Wall Street/Silicon Valley tours with separate recruiting events? The $$$$ spent on athletes is the money taken away from academic programs. For this reason, Stanford as a whole can not compete academically with top ivies where there is no special treatment for athletes. They are correctly place at #6 by USNews (according to some Stanford students.)

I graduated in 2000 from a LCPS school.

My SAT is what got me in because my grades were just okay. My parents burnt me out by 10th grade with the all honors & AP courses, extra curricular classes, etc. I missed a lot of school, which hurt my grades. Looking back now, it was anxiety making me sick that was never caught by any doctors. I was properly diagnosed midway through my freshmen year at college and it changed my life.

Anyway, SAT 1580, ACT 36, GPA was only 3.0 or 3.1. I had 5s on every AP test I took, which I believe ended up being 6 or maybe 7.

Colleges:
UVA - accepted (was considered my safety back then, ha!)
Penn - accepted
Columbia - accepted
Stanford - accepted
Brown - accepted
Yale - accepted & attended
Elon - accepted
Duke - waitlisted
W&M - rejected (this was the hardest school to get in as a VA resident during my time)

I didn't really have any normal HS extracurriculars. Mine were all academic based like tutoring. No instrument after MS, no HS sports teams, no club sports. I had some volunteer hours and two school clubs.

My only hook was that neither parent had attended college.