<p>I was talking to a family friend who works at a high school and has seen tons of kids go through the college admissions process, and she said "after the athletes, the legacies, and the supergeniuses, at top-tier and Ivy League schools, there isn't much room for anybody else" Is this true? </p>
<p>Not to brag, but to be honest, I'm a really good student (at a competitive high school), with good scores, I'm active in the community, I've done a lot of unique projects overseas, have a lot of awards, and have a real passion for writing and journalism. </p>
<p>However, I am NOT</p>
<p>a varsity athlete
a virtuoso musician
a 4.0, 2400, 36, all AP genius
not a legacy (at the places I want)
haven't cured cancer/climbed Everest/composed a symphony</p>
<p>Will there be room for me, and other students like me, at top schools?</p>
<p>It is said that 60% of seats at ivies are taken by the groups with hooks. That does not leave many seats which is why so many deserving kids are being rejected. Try your best but have solid match schools too.</p>
<p>That's not true -- the legacies/athletes/supergeniuses don't make up a huge part of the pile; admissions follows normal distribution. Showing academic excellence, personality, and (above all) a passion is the best way to get yourself into the accepted pile.</p>
<p>Sorry, but you're both wrong unless your info is better than the WSJs. 60% are hooked. Being rich is the best way to get accepted followed by recruited athletes, URMs and then legacies.</p>
<p>Easy to say because you're a URM yourself, aren't you?</p>
<p>Anyways, to the OP -- it's inflated. However, according to suze's sources, it's not. There is always room for an unhooked applicant if they are truly outstanding. Don't let the statistics depress you.</p>
<p>It's better to face the reality. Kids from my D's top private school that got into HYPS are athletes, legacies, and genius. My D with 4.0 UW GPA with mostly honors/AP(only 1 B+ since 9th grade, all A or A+), with passion for dance, did not get into any of those schools. Kids with just a bit higher GPAs and SATs(50 pts highter) did get into those schools. Bust most of them were atheletes and legacies.</p>
<p>The point is, no matter how good of a student you think you are, make sure you find enough match/safety schools that you would be happy to go to. I think many first time parents and students were caught off guard on how competitive it is. The good news is that there are a lot good schools outside of Ivies. I think we will be a lot better at this with our second daughter.</p>
<p>First of all, people like you do have a chance. Second of all, don't look at only the Ivies... they're so competitive, it sometimes seems like acceptance is pretty much random.</p>
<p>I got into 2 Ivies... but not without my URM status. </p>
<p>I know plenty of people who were just like you who got into Ivies without any hook at all. Most of the unhooked acceptances to Ivies at my school were not by supergeniuses, but by people who were just very well rounded. </p>
<p>You have a chance, but acceptance is not guaranteed... so be ready for some rejections and find some match and safety schools you like. I loved my final list from top to bottom until I added one more safety school to my list, and I had already taken it off about 3 times.</p>
<p>What statistics are you talking about, suze? I haven't seen any, and as far as I know, colleges don't release such stats 'cause it'll make their admissions seem shady. I've seen plenty of cases where legacies were rejected, or where supposedly 'great' athletes were rejected (there are only so many athlete spots of the thousands of undergrads), etc. URMs are rejected quite often, and you can see that in colleges' stats. I do agree, though, that if you have money, it'll be easier.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are qualified and dedicated, you'll have a shot at a lot of top schools.
[/quote]
The RD admit rate at Harvard and Yale was under 6%. Columbia and Princeton admitted 8%. Brown, Dartmouth, and Penn admitted 11-15%. Harvard and Princeton dropped early admissions, which will increase selectivity. Many people will apply SCEA to Yale or Stanford instead, increasing selectivity there too. </p>
<p>Take these already tiny numbers of admits. Subtract developmental admits. Subtract recruited athletes. Subtract legacies with strong academic backgrounds. Subtract the students from feeder prep schools. Subtract qualified URMs. Subtract people from Wyoming and North Dakota. Subtract half of the valedictorians who applied. Subtract half of the 2300+ scorers who apply. Subtract the oboeists and bassoon players needed for the orchestra. Subtract the archaeology and astronomy majors needed to keep those departments intact. </p>
<p>What's left? Not much. Sure, you have a shot. Just don't get your hopes up, and have good safeties.</p>
<p>I agree with all of you who say that Ivies really ARE a crapshoot. It's just because my brother got into UPenn, and he's pretty similar to me, though his scores are a little better, and I feel like I should be able to get into my top choice Ivy as well, even though I know that's unrealistic. It's just a "thing" I have...</p>
<p>I don't think you need to be perfect academically, but if you haven't done anything EXCEPTIONAL and don't have a hook, you really need a 3.9+ and 2300+ with the appropriate accompanying ECs, etc. to be a solid contender. If by smart but not outstanding you mean like..3.7, 2200, then..things are looking more dismal.</p>
<p>I am not an athlete, legacy or genius and I got into an IVY.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
But, by the way, a lot of Ivy students do sports and never get recruited.</p>
<p>Um, outstanding colleges will look for outstanding students. Average students end up in average colleges. Any kid that ended up a top tier school was outstanding in some way.</p>