They say that if you are accepted to all the schools you applied to, you didn’t aim high enough. So doesn’t that mean these kids didn’t aim high enough? The real bar is being accepted by schools that don’t care about ECs and essays but merely your academic achievement and intellectual horsepower. It’s the Oxbridge, MIT, Caltech, UCB of the world, or the toughest schools to get into in China or India, where the acceptance is likely far lower than any school in the US. Unless these kids are also accepted by those schools, I’m not convinced that they are truly the best and brightest, just best at playing the admissions game. The best kids from China, India, Oxbridge, Caltech, UCB or MIT can probably eat their lunch. Let’s see what these kids accomplish 10 years out of college before we celebrate their “accomplishment”.
@cmsjmt this is a very ill informed post. Most people do not apply internationally because of financial aid. Why you a US student who gets into the top US schools apply to a place they cannot afford?
China, India, Oxbridge, Caltech, UCB or MIT
Why would someone got to China or India if they could speak the language. You sound crazy, bitter, or both?
@dancelance Ad hominem attacks are for people who run out of arguments.
Holistic admissions is a game. It’s not a real bar, it’s a bar that moves depending often on factors you have no control over, like your parentage, race, athletic ability, geographic location, life experience, ability to afford certain ECs etc. You can’t blame people for being suspicious of its results.
@cmsjmt I love how you completely ignore my questions.
I guess you don’t have an answer as to why an American kid apply to China or India if they don’t speak the language or want aid…
Run out of arguments?
Buddy, this is my first comment here. I ain’t even started yet.
I’m not saying these kids have to apply to these schools out of the country, I meant the kids in those countries who got into their top schools are probably far more distinguished academically than these kids, just because of the sheer size of their population, the competition has to be far keener. I have read for instance that the IIMs in India are far more difficult to get into than the Ivies, that top kids in India often only apply to the Ivies after they got rejected by the IIMs. Just because these 8-Ivy kids impress you doesn’t mean they have to impress everyone else. Some of us measure achievement by different standards.
The relevance of the difficulty of being accepted at IIT in India --as an example-- is not relevant. It’s a different system that relies on a narrow subset of knowledge to separate a huge number of candidates. Just as Juillard or the military academies, it offers no valid comparisons, and especially not about the quality of the candidates.
Another student chooses Yale: http://kfor.com/2015/05/10/teen-accepted-by-all-8-ivy-league-schools-chooses-yale/
Another chooses Stanford: http://kfor.com/2015/05/10/teen-accepted-by-all-8-ivy-league-schools-chooses-yale/
So, of 7 (so far), 4 to Harvard, 1 to MIT, 1 to Yale, 1 to Stanford. Right now, of those who’ve come to the attention of the media, it’s 57% for Harvard, and 14% each for MIT, Yale and Stanford.
I have heard that many private schools encourage students to apply early to their reach schools. If those students get in to Ivy League schools, I have heard that such schools will refuse to send out further applications. I have also heard that some private schools limit the number of applications a student may send out. If you can only send out 8 applications (say), it would be foolish in the extreme to only apply to the Ivy League.
That may also be why, relative to population, there are surprisingly few Indian students at Harvard and similar colleges: the best Indian students aren’t applying here.
As for Oxbridge, it’s not unusual at all for an American student to be accepted to Oxford or Cambridge and rejected by one or more of HYPS. That happened to one of my son’s friends. He was accepted at Oxford and Harvard (where he went), and rejected by Yale (legacy) and Stanford.
Student at my school accepted to HYP and Stanford also chose Harvard.
Or not accepted after having … applied. Albeit a different pot, Indians surely apply in droves to HBS – if that is any indication.
We could also look at MIT’s released numbers that show admission rates in the 2 to 3 percent range for internationals:
http://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats
A previous thread on CC presented the following numbers: To all international applicants who have not seen this before or who have not paid attention to this before, based 2012 numbers, the Harvard class of 2016s general admission rate is 5.92% (2,032 of 34,302), but the international admission rate is 3.38% (203/6,014) comparing to domestic admission rate 6.47% (1,829/28,288).
@cmsjmt, MIT is just as holistic as the Ivies (and also take in to account gender, race, and athletic ability in some sports). Caltech is closer to Oxbridge (but also take in to account gender, though not race, athletic ability, or legacy).
In any case, the system for admissions to Oxbridge isn’t very similar to that at most American elites, so definitely some would do very well in one type and not well in the other and vice versa.
Anecdotally, more students from a third country (China) seem to do better at Oxbridge admissions than in to HYPSM, though that may be because the higher education entrance system in China is closer to England’s than the USA’s.
Here’s another data point: My son (not a URM or first-generation student) applied to Yale, Stanford, Princeton, and Harvard at approximately the same time in the early fall—way before the SCEA deadline. He applied SCEA to Yale but was certain he wanted to apply to the others because he wasn’t sure how he’d feel in the spring and also wanted to be able to compare financial aid offers (if he got in). His original list had 11 schools on it, including a couple of other Ivys, a few UCs, and some other less prestigious schools he just really liked. Because he had to apply to the UCs before hearing from Yale, he did; around the same time, he also sent in one other application to another school (not an Ivy) he liked a lot. Then he got into Yale early. He immediately withdrew his UC applications, even though he almost certainly would have been accepted, possibly with one of the Regents’ scholarships. He had no interest in applying to schools for “bragging rights”—a waste of time and money, and he didn’t want to take someone else’s potential spot. In the end, he got into all his schools, and for HYP and Stanford, the financial aid was ultimately comparable (though not at first). Deciding was very difficult—even though the schools were quite different, there were things he really liked about each one, especially Yale. He finally chose Stanford, though—he’s planning to major in computer science, and in the 6–7 months between the time he filed his applications and received all the decisions, he’d learned much more about the state of computer science at each school; for him, that was the deciding factor.
That sounds like a well-executed … plan!
'there are brilliant kids out there who never think of going someplace besides their state flagship (or maybe in other cases Notre Dame, or BYU, or Liberty), or who don’t want to go far from home."
Yep. I’ve had a WoW or two who went ED at Wellesley, Caltech, etc. They just weren’t looking to buy what Harvard sells. Future NFL quarterbacks like Andrew Luck (if their talent is apparent during HS) are a classic example.
@xiggi that “narrow subset of knowledge” their applicants are measured by is called “pure academic achievement”, which is the same metric that all other countries use for college admissions. The US is the only country in the world that practices “holistic admissions”. Only in the US can someone with barely above average grades but excellent athletic skills (or some other holistic metric) get into all the top colleges. In all other countries, the only thing that matters is your grades, because their colleges are purely interested in your ability to learn what you need to learn, nothing else matters. It’s much more meritocratic.
@PurpleTitan you are right, MIT does practice holistic admission, but it’s not to the extent of the Ivies or Stanford, you still have to be excellent in math and science to get into the school. I should add Cooper Union to the list, at least before they started charging tuition.
Is it more meritocratic? Or do you use a different version of meritocracy from the person who coined the term? For instance, since you attack athletic skills, could you explain why you would consider the mental “muscle” above the others? Compared to the advantages given to for racial or SES issues, you seem to pick the one that is actually entirely … meritocratic! Unless you consider a mathlete superior to a pure athlete!
Do you really consider the ability to do “well” throughout high school and pick up enough math “knowledge” sufficient a metric? What if a school decided to judge students solely on the SAT test and make it free and easy for every student in the US to apply? How selective would such school be if 2,000,000 applicants fought for one of the 500 annual spots? Oops, we are now beyond your IIT (or IIM) range, aren’t we? Do not like the SAT? Let’s make it based on the GPA only. Same metrics and voila … again the most selective school on earth in terms of admissions?
What kind of class will such university have? The luck of the draw might yield enough people to throw a football or play a tune of two? Will everyone else be a CS or business major who could not present a cogent argument, or have much of general culture. Compound that for a few decades and let me know if a world that produces solely technical geniuses would be that great! A world filled with characters like the doctors on Bone?
Does the term “narrow” begin to be clear to you? I suggest you dig a bit deeper and read more about meritocracy before tossing the term around.
Are you saying all Oxbridge/European college grads are “CS or business majors who can’t present a cogent argument”, or “have much of general culture?” What is college for anyway?
@cmsjmt, English and most European uni students are definitely more narrowly trained. Someone who majors in Maths at Oxford will study solely math for 3 years. Likewise, major in Classics, and that is all you are studying for 3 years. They’re seeking to groom specialists. The top American colleges are seeking to groom future leaders.
BTW, the Japanese privates can be holistic as well (many administer their own tests, but the top 2 privates–Keio and Waseda–do take some kids mainly because they are good at baseball).