Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:+1. I know 4 kids at Ivy or Ivy adjacent schools and they're all smart & quirky with pointy ECs.NP. I’m openly skeptical of the story of the “ordinary” applicant who got in. There is another hook or the person is a troll.
And those 4 constitute what percentage of total admitted students in the colleges you referred to? You look at a tree and generalize to the forest. Must have a hollow in the left side of your brain.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Brown: Rejected
UPen: accepted
Harvard: accepted
4.6 GPA
11 APs all 5s
1540 SAT
Great EC
These are the same stats as students rejected from Emery and Rice. Does it all boil down to ECs? Essays that catch someone’s eye? Recommendation letters? I don’t view it as a lottery but a very subjective process. (Although congratulations to your DC & hoping she has a wonderful college experience!)
Yes, and yes. Getting into the schools with the lowest acceptance rate is NOT about "perfect stats." Tons of kids with perfect stats get turned down and kids with imperfect stats get in all the time. If GPA/SAT were the basis of admission it could done by computer. Really really good GPA/test scores get you to the next round and that is where the holistic admissions process kicks in. And that is the essay/ECs/letter piece. Those are essential for the most in-demand schools.[/quote]
Also agree with a pp that it's holistic in terms of variety. There are only so many top stats stem kids with a string instrument ec they'll accept. You're better off with a less common humanities focus or something else that differentiates you from the pack.
Including home region and background and parental status (first gen/legacy) and sporting ability.
The priority athletes are not a part of Ivy Day, so athletic level isn't helpful now. They already know they are in!
What does the info about stats and first gen/legacy give you and others?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If that’s what people on here mean when they say “Great ECs” my kid has a better shot than I thought. I though “Great ECs” meant State champion sprinter and Academic Decathalon 2d Place. The stuff listed by pp is attainable!
music though I think is the real EC schools like to see even if it's not national level.
Where is your evidence for this?
Yes, I'd wonder about thus. But Harvard does like well rounded and especially looks for commitment to service. Still think PP's kid is probably not applying from DMV though.
I also think there are hooks we're not be told about. My kid with these kind of stats and ECs was competing with classmates with patents for detecting eye diseases or who had discovered solutions to math mysteries that university professors hadn't been able to solve in the last 100 years. I also wonder about whether participation in girl scouts and bumble bee soccer in kindergarten should count.
Lots of kids only have access to Girl Scouts & “bumblebee soccer” as extracurriculars.
Sure, but we were told only to include high school ECs, not stuff our kid was doing when they were 5. Bumblebee soccer is what they do when they are 5 when the whole team is swarming after the ball.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Brown: Rejected
UPen: accepted
Harvard: accepted
4.6 GPA
11 APs all 5s
1540 SAT
Great EC
These are the same stats as students rejected from Emery and Rice. Does it all boil down to ECs? Essays that catch someone’s eye? Recommendation letters? I don’t view it as a lottery but a very subjective process. (Although congratulations to your DC & hoping she has a wonderful college experience!)
Anonymous wrote:+1. I know 4 kids at Ivy or Ivy adjacent schools and they're all smart & quirky with pointy ECs.NP. I’m openly skeptical of the story of the “ordinary” applicant who got in. There is another hook or the person is a troll.
+1. I know 4 kids at Ivy or Ivy adjacent schools and they're all smart & quirky with pointy ECs.NP. I’m openly skeptical of the story of the “ordinary” applicant who got in. There is another hook or the person is a troll.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If that’s what people on here mean when they say “Great ECs” my kid has a better shot than I thought. I though “Great ECs” meant State champion sprinter and Academic Decathalon 2d Place. The stuff listed by pp is attainable!
music though I think is the real EC schools like to see even if it's not national level.
Where is your evidence for this?
Yes, I'd wonder about thus. But Harvard does like well rounded and especially looks for commitment to service. Still think PP's kid is probably not applying from DMV though.
I also think there are hooks we're not be told about. My kid with these kind of stats and ECs was competing with classmates with patents for detecting eye diseases or who had discovered solutions to math mysteries that university professors hadn't been able to solve in the last 100 years. I also wonder about whether participation in girl scouts and bumble bee soccer in kindergarten should count.
Lots of kids only have access to Girl Scouts & “bumblebee soccer” as extracurriculars.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If that’s what people on here mean when they say “Great ECs” my kid has a better shot than I thought. I though “Great ECs” meant State champion sprinter and Academic Decathalon 2d Place. The stuff listed by pp is attainable!
music though I think is the real EC schools like to see even if it's not national level.
Where is your evidence for this?
Yes, I'd wonder about thus. But Harvard does like well rounded and especially looks for commitment to service. Still think PP's kid is probably not applying from DMV though.
I also think there are hooks we're not be told about. My kid with these kind of stats and ECs was competing with classmates with patents for detecting eye diseases or who had discovered solutions to math mysteries that university professors hadn't been able to solve in the last 100 years. I also wonder about whether participation in girl scouts and bumble bee soccer in kindergarten should count.
NP here. I will say up front that my kid goes to a DC private, which many say is a hook in itself. But the kids accepted to Ivies are very smart but no one has a patent and a lot have what I would consider good ECs (student government, varsity athlete, plays instrument) but all interests at the school. Maybe we are talking past each other on math because some Ivy kids were taking extremely high level math but many simply had BC Calc. And there are also athletes, who are not always top kids (some are) but have a lot of sports talent and will be able to manage the academics just as they have in HS. Legacy does seem to help but not all admitted kids are legacy.
Anyway, I think there are way more qualified kids than spots so many worthy kids are denied. But the myth of the “super student” is inflated on this board, imo. You would find all of them impressive but they haven’t cured cancer.
When your kid goes to a magnet high school these things aren't a myth. In reality some students were looking for treatments for brain tumors and had filed for patents. That is why there are discussions about whether you might be better off being a star at your base school if you are less than a super student.
What is perhaps not so obvious to the general public about a magnet like TJ is the incredible infrastructure they have in place to get their students research opportunities with colleges and industry mentors to partake in these kinds of ECs. My kid was interested in Regeneron and I thought had a good idea, but all the administrative hurdles that the my kid / school had to to do in order to pursue the idea were quite unexpected and would have required a ton of effort just to be able to start the project. TJ, Blair, etc. I imagine have all that infrastructure well established...no kid has to create that from scratch as mine would have had to do.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rejected from Brown and Dartmouth.
What a strange combination to apply to
My kid also applied to both. Those were the only Ivy Applications. Currently at Brown.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If that’s what people on here mean when they say “Great ECs” my kid has a better shot than I thought. I though “Great ECs” meant State champion sprinter and Academic Decathalon 2d Place. The stuff listed by pp is attainable!
music though I think is the real EC schools like to see even if it's not national level.
Where is your evidence for this?
Yes, I'd wonder about thus. But Harvard does like well rounded and especially looks for commitment to service. Still think PP's kid is probably not applying from DMV though.
I also think there are hooks we're not be told about. My kid with these kind of stats and ECs was competing with classmates with patents for detecting eye diseases or who had discovered solutions to math mysteries that university professors hadn't been able to solve in the last 100 years. I also wonder about whether participation in girl scouts and bumble bee soccer in kindergarten should count.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Brown: Rejected
UPen: accepted
Harvard: accepted
4.6 GPA
11 APs all 5s
1540 SAT
Great EC
These are the same stats as students rejected from Emery and Rice. Does it all boil down to ECs? Essays that catch someone’s eye? Recommendation letters? I don’t view it as a lottery but a very subjective process. (Although congratulations to your DC & hoping she has a wonderful college experience!)
Yes, and yes. Getting into the schools with the lowest acceptance rate is NOT about "perfect stats." Tons of kids with perfect stats get turned down and kids with imperfect stats get in all the time. If GPA/SAT were the basis of admission it could done by computer. Really really good GPA/test scores get you to the next round and that is where the holistic admissions process kicks in. And that is the essay/ECs/letter piece. Those are essential for the most in-demand schools.[/quote]
Also agree with a pp that it's holistic in terms of variety. There are only so many top stats stem kids with a string instrument ec they'll accept. You're better off with a less common humanities focus or something else that differentiates you from the pack.
Including home region and background and parental status (first gen/legacy) and sporting ability.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Brown: Rejected
UPen: accepted
Harvard: accepted
4.6 GPA
11 APs all 5s
1540 SAT
Great EC
These are the same stats as students rejected from Emery and Rice. Does it all boil down to ECs? Essays that catch someone’s eye? Recommendation letters? I don’t view it as a lottery but a very subjective process. (Although congratulations to your DC & hoping she has a wonderful college experience!)
Yes, and yes. Getting into the schools with the lowest acceptance rate is NOT about "perfect stats." Tons of kids with perfect stats get turned down and kids with imperfect stats get in all the time. If GPA/SAT were the basis of admission it could done by computer. Really really good GPA/test scores get you to the next round and that is where the holistic admissions process kicks in. And that is the essay/ECs/letter piece. Those are essential for the most in-demand schools.[/quote]
Also agree with a pp that it's holistic in terms of variety. There are only so many top stats stem kids with a string instrument ec they'll accept. You're better off with a less common humanities focus or something else that differentiates you from the pack.